Re: The trouble with triples. (Was Three ballot...

From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj_at_charter_dot_net>
Date: Wed Sep 27 2006 - 08:47:47 CDT

This sounds EXTREMELY complicated. How in the world are people who in
past times haven't been able to figure out how to use a simple ballot
EVER going to learn this? It will confuse these people to be "voting
not for". The incidence of faulty ballots will surely go up with this idea.

>Kathy and Kurt,
>Here's a little more details on how Rivest's scheme works to answer
>your questions
>first Kurt, The terminolgy "against" is off-putting, I agree.
>Though I see why he chose it:it's hard to invent a better term for
>what Rivest means. He means literally you are "voting not for",
>because on his ballot you have to make marks for people you do not
>wish to win. He had to have a term for that positive action, so I
>guess he called it voting "against".
>This may be come more clear as I answer kathy's question.
>So let's review: in every race you have to mark one oval for people
>you don't want to win (AKA vote against) and two ovals for the
>candidate you do want to win. The ballot is then trisected.
>Looking at any given ballot the scanner can't tell if an oval was
>part of a vote "for" or a "vote" against. Instead for any oval it
>sees, it simply increments the counter for that candidate.
>Now what happens is that every time 3 ballots are inserted, then on a
>properly marked ballot, at least one oval for every candidate is
>filled. Thus no matter what the counter for each candidate
>increments one tick for every voter. and the voter's preferred
>candidate increments two ticks.
>thus at the end of the day candidate each candidates total is
>N+(number of votes for)
>where N is the number of voters.
>If you want you can subtract N from each candidate's totals, then you
>are left with simply the number of votes for.
>SO now you can see why he has this elaborate "vote checker" that
>verifies the 3ballot is of valid form (all the candidates must have
>an oval checked, only one candidate has two ovals checked, and none
>has three ovals checked). And only after that validation can the
>voter insert the 3 strips into the vote counting machine.
>Of course since rivest wants physical separation of the checker and
>counter (because of his desiderata that the counter can be blind to
>which ballot strips go together) And there's a problem. The voter
>might modify the ovals after it was checked, or switch one of the
>ballot strips for another in his pocket, and thus be able to fill in
>more ovals for his favorties and remove ovals for those he opposes,
>and thus vote multiple times.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. ProgressiveNews2Use has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is
ProgressiveNews2Use endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers
and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating
pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions
posted on ProgressiveNews2Use may not match the versions our readers
view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

OVC-discuss mailing list

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sat Sep 30 23:17:07 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 23:17:08 CDT