[EM] it's pleocracy, not democracy
juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
Tue Mar 6 13:32:58 PST 2007
On Mar 6, 2007, at 8:56 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 04:50 PM 3/5/2007, Juho wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2007, at 7:02 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>> How, indeed, it occurs to me to ask, are we to know who "got their
>>> way" in a secret ballot system? The presumption might be that the
>>> "way" was gotten by a party.
>>> It would be just my luck that by the time I wised up and became a
>>> Republican, the Democrats would get their turn. (Make no
>>> assumptions about my personal politics from this.)
>> It is possible to link the information that is carried from one
>> election to another to parties or candidates as well as to the
>> voters, depending on the characteristics of the environment.
> I think that Juho did not get the implications of what I wrote. If
> we are going to link the randomization that allegedly eliminates
> injustice to "minority" voters, we must have open voting, we can't
> have secret ballot. If we have secret ballot, and there is some
> hidden process that randomizes the results, well, tell me, would
> *you* trust that such a process was not being manipulated? After
> all, there would be no way to check.
Ok, I appreciate also these concerns. One needs to consider in which
situations each variant works as wanted.
My intention was to point out also that when the "carry over points"
are tied to the parties that doesn't yet reveal who voted those parties.
All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
More information about the Election-Methods