What about a meta election?

[Charles Fiterman]

At 04:58 PM 10/2/98 +0200, you wrote:
>> Example:
>>
>>    18 voters prefer A to B to C to D to E.
>>    17 voters prefer E to D to A to B to C.
>>    17 voters prefer B to C to A to D to E.
>>    15 voters prefer D to E to C to A to B.
>>    14 voters prefer E to D to B to C to A.
>>    11 voters prefer E to C to A to B to D.
>>    2 voters prefer C to A to B to D to E.
>>    1 voter prefers A to C to B to D to E.
>>    1 voter prefers C to B to E to A to D.
>>    1 voter prefers C to E to B to A to D.
>>    1 voter prefers E to B to C to D to A.
>>    1 voter prefers E to C to D to A to B.
>>    1 voter prefers D to E to B to C to A.

So the question becomes "Is there a way for
a voter to give all this information and fill
other requirements of an election, honesty, 
secrecy, convenience etc. that argue so 
strongly against written ballots and complex
ones?

I regard this as a very strong argument against
this kind of system. Imagine the voter writing
down 1, 2, 3, 4. Next to candidates names.

If their are many candidates the voter will take
a long time to vote. People will see the line
and be disenfranchised by walking away. There
will be few elected offices, a very undemocratic
situation in and of itself.

Votes will take a long time to count. This is 
the strongest fraud magnet I know of. If these
votes take three days to count the winner will
be the biggest crook, a factor not in the math.

Counting votes will be a subjective process.
The second strongest fraud magnet I know of.
Since handwriting is distinctive you have
compromised the secret ballot. This is especially
true if some voters are trying to communicate,
say by putting a loop on the number two. I've
seen secret ballot accidently compromised by
write in votes, this is not an imagined issue.

On the basis of mathematics you have a better
system than approval voting. But we don't live
in mathematics. Out in the real world you have
a fraud magnet that no one can ever live with.