Legality of "inverting" ballots by Condorcet.

[Richard Moore]

Buddha Buck wrote:

> I see no fraud there.  I see a documented election procedure being
> followed, and accurately documented.  Or did you not notice that the
> election results I posted stated -SEVERAL- times that the election had
> to be determined based on clearly marked inverted ballots?  I stated:
> 
> 1) There was no clear Condorcet winner
> 2) That A beat B 66:33, B beat C 67:32, and C beat A 65:34
> 3) That because of this, the smallest defeat (C beat A) was inverted
> 4) In the revised table of defeats, I listed A beat C 34:67.
> 5) I put parenthesis around the anomalous, but accurate, vote tallies
> for the inverted defeat
> 6) I footnoted the inverted defeat as being inverted.
> 7) The original ballots were available for inspection -- and there is
> a challenge process available to candidates who dispute the results.
> 
> I fail to see how any of that is fraudulent.


Especially since the rules were in place before the 
election. I think Demo's being a bit heavy-handed here.

It would of course be fraudulent to change the rules after 
the election.

Richard