[EM] Approval fraud prevention (was Re: A conversation with an English woman about IRV)
Dave Ketchum
davek at clarityconnect.com
Wed May 4 13:35:34 PDT 2011
Jameson offers a couple very good points:
There are MANY ways to commit fraud.
MANY methods are susceptible, including Plurality.
Dave Ketchum
On May 4, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> Unfortunately, there is no task that you can manually ask the voters
> to do, which won't lead to unacceptably high levels of spoiled
> ballots. My ballot doesn't count because I didn't vote against
> Wingnut Moonbat? Or because I didn't count up my approvals
> correctly? Once I failed to win a competition because I incorrectly
> counted and self-reported my score. Since it was a math competition,
> perhaps that was just. But voting is not a math competition; spoiled
> votes should be avoided.
>
> So, you need some ballot integrity process which is separate from
> the voting system used. It could be automatic photos of the ballot;
> it could be machine-marked-voter-verified-paper-ballots; it could be
> some kind of transparent sticker or other surface treatment; it
> could be multiple custody throughout the ballot's lifetime (never
> let anyone alone with them); or many other things.
>
> Note that such a system is just as necessary for plurality, or
> approval with a requirement to vote against, or whatever. I can just
> as easily commit fraud by spoiling my opponents' votes as by adding
> votes for me.
>
> Jameson
>
> 2011/5/4 Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>
> Agreed that the warning about "fraudprone" is valid. Rather than
> the labor-intensive change I see below, I would simply require the
> voter to indicate quantity of approvals.
>
> Dave Ketchum
>
>
> On May 4, 2011, at 3:14 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
>
> 2011-05-04T05:48:15Z, “Matt Welland” <Matt at Kiatoa.Com>:
>
> I think it is within reach for us to change this bad
> situation but we need the experts (you) to accept that the world
> isn't ready for the perfect solution and drive hard for the most
> achievable and pragmatic solution. Please consider getting behind
> Approval voting and to stop confusing the politicians and public
> with complicated ideas. Repeat this everywhere: Approval good,
> plurality bad, IRV worse.
>
> I know that we must focus like a laser. I point out that
> plurality and IRV are bad. I advocate approval with a twist:
>
> The ballot like thus, is fraudprone:
>
> [ ] Candidate A
> [ ] Candidate B
> [ ] Candidate C
> [ ] Candidate D
> [ ] Candidate E
> [ ] Candidate F
> [ ] Candidate G
> [ ] Candidate H
> [ ] Candidate I
> [ ] Candidate J
> [ ] Candidate K
> [ ] Candidate L
> [ ] Candidate M
> [ ] Candidate N
> [ ] Candidate O
> [ ] Candidate P
> [ ] Candidate Q
> [ ] Candidate R
> [ ] Candidate S
> [ ] Candidate T
> [ ] Candidate U
> [ ] Candidate V
> [ ] Candidate W
> [ ] Candidate X
> [ ] Candidate Y
> [ ] Candidate Z
>
>
> Because a supporter of O can approval O after the ballots are
> cast on every ballot not already approving O. This is better:
>
> Instructions
>
> One must either approve [+] or reject [-] every candidate or
> the ballot is considered spoiled.
>
> [+] [-] Candidate A
> [+] [-] Candidate B
> [+] [-] Candidate C
> [+] [-] Candidate D
> [+] [-] Candidate E
> [+] [-] Candidate F
> [+] [-] Candidate G
> [+] [-] Candidate H
> [+] [-] Candidate I
> [+] [-] Candidate J
> [+] [-] Candidate K
> [+] [-] Candidate L
> [+] [-] Candidate M
> [+] [-] Candidate N
> [+] [-] Candidate O
> [+] [-] Candidate P
> [+] [-] Candidate Q
> [+] [-] Candidate R
> [+] [-] Candidate S
> [+] [-] Candidate T
> [+] [-] Candidate U
> [+] [-] Candidate V
> [+] [-] Candidate W
> [+] [-] Candidate X
> [+] [-] Candidate Y
> [+] [-] Candidate Z
>
> Now the ballots are resistant to manipulation after voting.
> This format is human/machine-readable.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110504/c8a58cbc/attachment-0004.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list