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

[AllAbout Voting]

Kathy Dopp wrote:
>It seems to me that most of the persons on this list would rather have
>votes fraudulently counted using some alternative voting scheme that
>requires an unverifiable unauditable electronic voting system, than
>accurately counted using the plurality election method.
Some have that attitude.  I'm not one of them.  I think that plurality is
a lousy voting method *and* that our current voting system is wide-open
to fraud.  In my view both can and should be addressed.  For the most
part the means of addressing them are orthogonal.

That said, voting methods that are not countable in precincts (eg. IRV)
pose a very large challenge to providing for election integrity.  This,
in addition to other significant faults of IRV, causes me to oppose IRV..

I notice that some supporters of Condorcet voting (Dave Ketchum in
particular) directly argue that improving the plurality system should be
done even if it sacrifices election integrity.

So I will ask a pair of constructive questions:
1. Can Condorcet voting be compatible with precinct level optical scan
systems?  (which many election integrity advocates consider to be
pretty good)
2. Can Condorcet voting be compatible with end-to-end verifiable
election integrity systems such as punchscan, 3-ballot, etc...?

I suspect that the answers to both questions is 'yes' which would make
Ketchum's dangerous arguments that software can be blindly trusted irrelevant.

-Greg Wolfe
-- 
I now run an election reform website.
Read my rantings here: http://AllAboutVoting.com