[EM] Paul: Counts

[Michael Ossipoff]

Paul:

You said:

That wasn't Dave who said that, it was me.

[endquote]

That's why I said, "My apologies to Paul Kislanko, whom I called by the
wrong name."

You asked:

My point was that what is it you're going to count by hand? The tape printed
out by the machine I voted on?

[endquote]

It wouldn't be printed on a tape, would it. The card that it's printed out
on? Sure, if you've
had a chance to look at it first, to verify that it says what you intended
it to, before you deposit
it in the ballot-box slot.

But who says it has to be marked by a machine. A handcount actually doesn't
require
a machine-printed ballot!  I would not deceive you about that.

The voter could mark hir ballot, _hirself_, without a machine!

Pencils used to be used, for instance. Pens would be better, for an
un-erasable mark.
Punched cards have been used too. Read by a machine, but  (hopefully) saved
for examination.
Of course even if punched cards are used, that doesn't mean that they must
be read by machine at
all. Punched holes are especially un-modifiable.

Someone pointed out that an Approval ballot could be illegally modified by
adding more marks.

One solution would be for the voter to mark "Approved" or "Unapproved".

In any case, video cameras must record every moment that the ballots are
handled. That would prevent
modifications. The locked ballot-box, in a locked room, should likewise be
video-camera protected.

I'm skeptical about secure machine-counts, but it would be ok if it could
be guaranteed. Until then,
counting should only be by hand. That rules out Condorcet and Kemeny.
Approval is easily handcountable.

Mike Ossipoff



If I didn't hand-fill-out a ballot you've no way to know whether the ballots
you're counting by hand match what I told the machine was my vote.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120428/1dce65b0/attachment-0003.htm>