[EM] IRV vs Plurality

[Dave Ketchum]

Ok, there are multiple topics.

Any voter can want secrecy and, if so, should have that protection so  
that the voter can vote as preferred without risking problems with  
enemies.

You write often about a different class of voters who do not want such  
secrecy.  While not convinced of the value of supporting such, my most  
critical interest is that helping these should not be done in a way  
that can interfere with the secrecy that can be wanted and thus should  
be provided for the first group.

On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:50 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 07:10 PM 1/11/2010, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> The possible excitement tangles with the secrecy laws - reporting  
>> in a
>> manner that identifies how ANY ONE voter voted needs preventing
>> (needed protection of voters).
>
> There is a problem with ranked ballots and true write-in votes: a  
> voter may identify the ballot specifically and clearly. The voter  
> writes in their own name. In last rank, that has practically no  
> effect. With plurality, the write-in shows, but it then makes the  
> ballot moot, generally. (If it's unique, it's moot!) Vote-coercers  
> don't want the person to vote for themselves! And a mark in any  
> other place than the write-in place invalidates the ballot, and any  
> writing in the write-in -- any at all -- generally invalidates a  
> vote for any other candidate.
...

Dave Ketchum