[EM] 12/09/02 - Betrayal of the IRV voters by the Charlatans:

[Alex Small]

Donald E Davison said:
> method, but in order to do that they need access to the ballots, that's
> why they are opposed to the secrecy of the ballots.

Two types of ballot secrecy:

1)  Nobody's name or ID number is printed on the ballot he uses, so it's
anonymous.
2)  Nobody has access to the ballots to examine them after the counts.

The first secrecy is essential.  The second is dangerous.

I don't want another Katherine Harris to disappear into a back room with
the ballots and then assure us "This was the correct result."  I don't
want to see a picture in the paper of people peering at punch-card ballots
like entrails in a temple unless the people and the press have a chance to
examine the "entrails" afterward.  (Think of that famous picture from the
FL recount.)  If this means that people also get to say as an academic
exercise "Hey, what if we used a different method?" then so be it.

And nobody is saying that the IRV winner is the "wrong winner."  The right
winner is whoever wins under the rules in place at the time of the
election.  The only question is, which set of rules will be most
responsive to the desires of the voters and foster the healthiest
competition among candidates?  (Healthy competition does NOT include
giving crutches to weak candidates, but it does include removing
incentives for a candidate to avoid votes, e.g. non-monotonicity.)

I don't think you're a charlatan, Donald.  I think your criteria for an
optimal election method are not as desirable as some other criteria, but I
think you are fully rational in your support for the method that best fits
your criteria.  So, don't call us charlatans.



Alex


----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em