[EM] Ballot integrity (Was 'Re: "margins vs. winning votes" and Woodall's "Plurality" criterion')

[Dave Ketchum]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:39:05 -0800 Ted Stern wrote:

> On 6 Mar 2005 at 06:50 PST, Chris Benham wrote:
> 
>>>Oh, by the way, I would *not* allow equal rankings. Why not? I just
>>>don't like them. They strike me as an unnecessary complication and
>>>little more than a way to game the system.
>>>
>>I think an ideal method in an ideal world should allow them; but I can see
>>that voters are not likely to be enthusiastic or to see any great point, and
>>that they could be untidy from the practical point-of-view. Also with paper
>>ballots, there could maybe be a theoretical possibility or suspicion that
>>some extra "1"s could be added after the ballots have been cast.

Those voters that see no value are welcome to not use them.

I do not understand "untidy" as used above.
>>
>>
> 
> This is a whole different can of worms.  Any ranking scheme has the
> possibility of ballot tampering unless you design the ballot carefully.  That
> is the one argument that plurality (SV-FPP) has over anything else, even
> approval.
> 
> There are several ballot-checking strategies that could be used.  The simplest
> is that all candidates would be ranked.  But if there were 100's of
> candidates, it might be easier to simply enter a count of how many candidates
> were entered at a given rank.

I like best that we leave detail of ballot design to someone prepared to apply 
some skill to this problem.

Until we find such:
     I like a single field per candidate, with a numeric or letter code to be 
filled in (among the tampering with multiple fields is to fill in an extra, 
thus destroying the ballot).
     One code means unranked at the bottom.
     Unreadable I would translate to a ranked value - probably at the bottom, 
just above unranked.
     Hundreds of candidates is abnormal, but CA has demonstrated that it is 
possible.  Perhaps the rules should be adjusted when this happens.
> 
> Here's a sample ballot:
> 
>                  |<--  Best    .............    Worst -->|
> 
>                   1    2    3    4   5    6    7    8   9    Below
>                  
>        A         ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )    ( )    
>        B         ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )    ( )
>        C         ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )    ( )
>        D         ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )    ( )
>        E         ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )    ( )
>        ...       ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )    ( )
> 
>        Minimum   ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) ( )
>        Approved
>        Rank  
> 
>        Number    [ ]  [ ]  [ ]  [ ] [ ]  [ ]  [ ]  [ ] [ ]
>        at
>        Rank
> 
> The voter could provide a count of how many votes were entered at a particular
> rank.  If the actual count differed, the ballot would be recognized as
> spoiled.
> 
> Or they could enter a rank of "Below" for any candidate they specifically
> don't choose to rank.
> 
> Ted

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.