RE: Fw: counting preferential ballots

From: Arnold Urken <aurken_at_stevens_dot_edu>
Date: Thu Oct 28 2004 - 11:25:38 CDT

Dear Alan and Hubert:

I am glad to see a revived discussion of voting methods. The implications
for vote counting and auditing have not been properly addressed to the best
of my knowledge. But let me suggest a couple of things to remember:

1. There may not be a tie for the Condorcet winner, so it may be
unreasonable to expect a unique universal winner. Generally, unique winners
are more likely under Copeland scoring, which compares the Condorcet scores
of each binary relationship.
2. All voting methods are manipulable, including the least-worst metric. An
important distinguishing characteristic is the type and amount of knowledge
required to carry out a manipulation.

Open source solutions should be voting method neutral, but should be used
intelligently so that adopters of new voting methods are not surprised by
problems such as frequently-tied elections, something that can happen with
approval voting.

Arnie

 
 
 
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon Nov 1 15:28:52 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 01 2004 - 15:28:58 CST