[EM] Anonymity & Neutrality. Results criteria & rules criteria.

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Thu Nov 10 22:24:53 PST 2005

I probably haven't seen the official definition of Anonymity, but it goes 
something like this:

(Earl Skruggs, referring to a song that he'd been describing, and was about 
to sing, added "...in fact it goes _exactly_ like this: ...")

The same ways of voting must be available to all voters.

For any configuration of voted ballots, it shouldn't make any difference 
which person voted which ballot.

[end of assumed Anonymity definition]

Same with Neutrality: This is just my judgement of what it means:

If we give the candidates fictitious names, such as letters of the alphabet, 
and, we replace the candidates' names on the ballots with those fictitious 
names, and count those ballots, then the matter of which fictitious name 
wins that count should be the same as it would have been if the same 
fictious names had been assigned to the same set of candidates, but with 
different names assigned to particular candidates.

[end of assumed Neutrality definition]

We all agree that Anonymity and Neutrality are essential, though Katherine 
Harris and Diebold would beg to differ.

Anonymity addresses the concern that motivates the "one-person-one-vote" 
criterion. But Anonymity makes no mention of methods' rules, such as 
balloting rules.

My point is that there is no need for rules criteria.

You might say that there is surely one rules criterioni that we need: 
Everyone who meets some specified reasonable requirements should be allowed 
to vote. But that isn't a rule for the voting system. It's a rule for the 
broader electoral system. There is no need, meaning or value for rules 
criteria for voting systems.

Mike Ossipoff

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list