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

[Dave Ketchum]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 01:03:47 -0400 Brian Olson wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2008, at 11:30 AM, AllAbout Voting wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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)
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> 2. Can Condorcet voting be compatible with end-to-end verifiable
>> election integrity systems such as punchscan, 3-ballot, etc...?
> 
> 
> Aside from the NxNx3 adaption of 3-ballot to condorcet information, I  
> think it was suggested on this list a while ago that 3-ballot can be  
> adapted to 0-100 range voting by scaling up its three ballots of 0-1  
> voting and requiring sums of 100-200 for a valid vote instead of sums  
> of 1 or 2. If that sort of system was used, rankings for condorcet  
> counting could be extracted from the ratings votes, or a more advanced  
> ratings-aware system could be used. Actually, that sounds pretty  messy. 
> NxNx3 is probably better.

For Condorcet, N*N*3 for 3-ballot sounds like time for something more 
affordable space-wise.  Since all there is to record for one ballot is Y vs 
N, N is absence of Y,  and positions for the Ys had to be calculated from 
the ballot, how many positions need recording?

Considering that C, the number of candidates voted for, is often one or 
two, not many.  There are LESS THAN N"C positions to record (while this N, 
the number of candidates, can be many).
> 
> Most of these methods require automatic ballot construction or  
> specially clueful voters. I'd expect 99% of voters to never bother  
> verifying that the election was actually done right if they had the  
> certificates with which to check it. I think probably the best defense  
> against electoral malfeasance is probably through the political and  
> legal processes, and through the vigilance of the citizenry. We'll  
> never make a system so mathematically perfect that we don't still need  
> those other things.
> 
Now it becomes MORE important to record for read back what the system 
thinks the voter voted, rather than some foreign construction such as the 
3-ballot array.

Not mentioned above is ability for those up to it to analyze the system 
programming in whatever detail they see as valuable.
> 
> Brian Olson
> http://bolson.org/
-- 
  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.