[EM] [CES #4433] Looking at Condorcet - Recounting

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Sun Feb 5 12:01:56 PST 2012

I believe this topic needs more thought.

Ability to do accurate recounts should be considered essential.   
Sooner or later counters will be tempted to "adjust" counts to help  
achieve desired wins - we should consider it unacceptable to tempt  
them by letting them hide evidence of such.

Recounts do not have to recount entire ballots.  If suspicious as to  
major candidates A and B in Condorcet. look at which of these is  
ranked highest but, having found one, not necessary to check whether  
that voter ranked the other some place lower.

If counts are reported by such as precinct, as in Condorcet, counts  
that look "odd" are the most likely locations of trouble.

Dave Ketchum

On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Stephen Unger wrote:

> A fundamental problem with all these fancy schemes is vote
> tabulation. All but approval are sufficiently complex to make manual
> processing messy, to the point where even checking the reported
> results of a small fraction of the precincts becomes a cumbersome,
> costly operation. (Score/range voting might be workable). Note that,
> even with plurality voting, manual recounts are rare. With any of the
> other schemes we would be committed to faith-based elections.
> Steve
> ............
> Stephen H. Unger
> Professor Emeritus
> Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
> Columbia University

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list