[EM] does Election-methode require e-voting?

[Gervase Lam]

> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 01:11:06 +0100
> From: David GLAUDE <dglaudemailing at gmx.net>
> Subject: [EM] does Election-methode require e-voting?

> How hard is it to manually "count the vote" for those method to be
> applyed? How hard is it to hand compute the result (once the vote are
> properly hand counted)?
> Do you need "computer counting and voter intend recording" for those or
> some of those methode to be practicaly applyed?

Well, the thread you inspired me into starting (Subject: Hand counting 
election methods) is sort of part of the way there.  What I was thinking 
of was starting small [e.g. MCA (which I think is too similar to Approval 
for there to be a worthwhile comment), Condorcet] and then possibly move 
up to the multi-seat methods that you mention, if I have the inclination.

I've only recently realised how massive this thread could be considering 
the number of election/voting methods there are.  Most of the discussion 
on this list has been about discussing the best/worst things of election 
methods.  For each of the methods mentioned, you've then got discuss how 
each method can be hand counted.

Hand counting of one multi-seat method was touched upon a month ago 
(Subject: Using Borda to Set an Agenda).  Forest Simmons sent a post 
explaining that Sequential PAV (Proportional Approval Voting) could be 
used.  I sent a post in response to this with an adapted version of 
Sequential PAV that used whole numbers.  As a result of this, I started 
thinking about (Non-Sequential) PAV.  When I have the time and 
inclination, I will probably post a reply to the thread.

PAV is probably better than Sequential PAV for multi-seat elections.  Adam 
Tarr posted a message on 12th February 2002 with a very good reason why.  
This post is in the middle of probably the most crucial and interesting 
thread on PAV.

Unfortunately, I really haven't answered the questions.  The only thing I 
can give at the moment are places to start from.