[EM] Let's clear up some confusion

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 4.10.2012, at 23.53, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
>>> I think you recommended Symmetrical ICT for informational polling. I guess you like and trust it within that framework.
>>
>> I like and trust Symmetrical ICT within every framework.
>>
>> In official public elections, I like and trust Symmetrical ICT.
>>
>> What I don't trust, in official public elections is the people who own
>> and operate the machines that do the machine balloting, and the
>> computerized counting. That's the "trust" reason why I don't propose
>> any rank-balloting method for official public elections.
>
> We went through this already once.

Yes.

> My opinion was that machine balloting can be avoided if needed. Computerized counting is not a problem if the (securely recorded) ballots are public, >or if many parties can double-check the results.

As you said, we've already covered that topic.  I refer you to my
postings in the earlier discussion. So you want 150 million ballots to
be "public". What, you mean copies of the electronic recording are
made public? You have great faith in the honesty of the recording.
...the process between the voting and this 150 million-ballot record.

As I said before, an Approval count can be publicly watched. Not just
the making of an allegedly-honest electronic recording of rankings,
but the actual final approval tallies in an Approval election, with
marking-pen on paper. When the actual result can be arrived at, via
simple tallying, in public, in the open, in front of observers from
the various parties, and recorded and televised by cameras belonging
to each party, Approval is incomparably, qualitatively, more
fraud-secure than any Condorcet method could be.

Mike Ossipoff