[EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:22:37 +0100 James Gilmour wrote:
> Dave Ketchum > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 1:16 AM
> 
>>We have to be doing different topics.
>
Actually we seem together on topics, but you reacted to what you took as a 
cue statement without noticing what I was saying.  Perhaps the following 
wording would get my actual thoughts noticed by more:
      While many methods, including Plurality, have no trouble correctly 
picking the winner when there are only two candidates, Plurality restricts 
voters unacceptably when there are more than two candidates and many voters 
want to show more than one as better than the remainder - which happens often.

To clarify, assume this voter wants Tom but, knowing that Tom may not win, 
wants to show preference for Dick over the remaining lemons.
> 
> Yes, we must indeed be doing different topics.
> 
> If you are electing the City Mayor or the State Governor and there are only two candidates, plurality is as good as it gets.  If
> there are more than two candidates you can do better with a different voting system - some favour a Condorcet approach, some IRV,
> and some promote a variety of other voting systems.
> 
> But the context in which my comment was set was much broader, following on from the general suggestion that we should not move from
> plurality (with single-member districts implied) to more complex voting systems because the possibility of detecting electoral fraud
> might thereby be reduced.  That proposition was not specific to single-office elections, but was relevant to the discussion of more
> general electoral reform on this list and under this topic (with some non-USA examples), a discussion that is taking place in both
> the USA and Canada that could see city councils and state legislatures (and perhaps even the US House of Representatives and the
> Senate!!) elected by voting systems that would give more representative results than the present plurality.
> 
> My problem with the statement "Plurality does fine with two candidates ..." is that I have heard it so many times over the years,
> mainly from those who are opposed to any reform that would make our various assemblies more representative, but sadly also from some
> who support reform of the voting system but say it would not need any change if there were only two parties.  That extrapolation
> from single-office elections to assembly elections is not valid.  In my experience the statement is unhelpful and hinders the cause
> of reform - hence my reaction to it.

Given such a statement, might be useful to emphasize that there are often 
more than two candidates and therefore voters need ability to identify 
which two or more are best liked - which Plurality cannot support.
> 
> James
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.