Re: What OVC does not address

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Fri Apr 16 2004 - 13:56:54 CDT

On Apr 16, 2004, at 12:38 PM, David Mertz wrote:

> ---
> OVC systems support both single-vote plurality winner tabulation and a
> variety of ranked-preference tabulation styles, including but not
> limited to: Instant Runoff Voting; Condorcet; Borda; Cardinality. For
> information on the relative advantages and disadvantage of tallying
> styles see [URL/Book/Article].
> ---

I agree with this. No organization that aspires to be seen as
a vendor can do more than support optional schemes and make it
clear that they are available. When the vendors start
suggesting changes to state law, we get into real trouble. This
has happened frequently in the voting arena, most frequently in
order to either exclude some other vendor or to lock in some
vendor. We must not be seen as playing such a game.

All of us, however, are free to advocate changes on our own, and
merely by not offering a pure DRE without paper trail, we are
taking a not-too-subtle advocacy position. It is because of that
that we can't afford to complicate the picture with other
advocacy.

                        Doug Jones
                        jones@cs.uiowa.edu
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Apr 30 23:17:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT