[EM] AERLO & CL-patch for MMPO

Russ Paielli 6049awj02 at sneakemail.com
Wed Jun 1 21:16:10 PDT 2005

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> For use with MMPO, it would be better if AERLO doesn't mention cycles at 
> all. It should just say:
> A voter may specify a line in his/her ranking, to indicate that if no 
> above-line candidate wins, then s/he wants to promote all above-line 
> candidates to 1st place, and have a recount.
> [end of MMPO AERLO definition]

Don't you just love Mike's diligent precision? Who else explicitly marks 
the end of a one-paragraph, one-sentence definition?

Unfortunately, Mike's "precise" definition leaves several important 
questions unanswered.

Exactly how do the promotions and recounts occur? Do we cycle through 
the voters one by one and perform a recount for each one? If so, in what 
order? Random? My guess is that we do it all at once in "batch" mode for 
all the voters, though Mike left that little "detail" up in the air. But 
what if the first recount changes the winner from one of my above-line 
candidates to one below it. Do I get another recount? How many are 
allowed? Do we continue until no voter has a winnerless list above his 
AERLO? That may seem obvious to Mike, but it sure needs to be clarified 
before the method ever sees the light of day.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think AERLO is summable, which greatly 
complicates public transparency and any guarantee of integrity. Mike 
should be concerned about that, considering that he is absolutely 
convinced that Bush's forces stole the 2004 election via tampering with 
paperless voting machines.

A precise definition is more important than a precise [end of definition].

[end of message]

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list