[EM] No. Condorcet and Hare do not share the same problem with computational complexity and process transparency.

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 03/20/2024 4:00 PM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> 
> 
> As a bit of an aside, the obsession with knowing who won the election the night of when the officials elected won’t take office for roughly two months strikes me as entirely unnecessary.

My that's convenient.  It might strike someone else differently.

> Better that all votes are counted fairly using the best system possible — 

Which is not IRV.

> which I’m not saying IRV is —

No, it's not.  Condorcet is better AND it's Precinct Summable to boot.  As is FPTP.

> than that we get instant gratification using an inferior method.

IRV is the inferior method and it leaves the impression with some voters and media people that something is hidden for two weeks.

The problem is single-point-of-failure.  Like that Boeing 737-MAX MCAS system.  With Precinct Summability, we have **redundancy** in the data paths of vote counts that **independent** people can use to determine the outcome of the elections.  With IRV there is only one source of information that you can get the vote tallies (that actually matter in determining the outcome) to see who wins.

The whole issue of this process transparency is so that if a surprise happens, like the media says that A wins, but then a week later the government announces that B won, then we know something might be fishy and then we can look to where the discrepancies lie.  Then ballot bags can be opened and focused recounts can be done.

If this announcement is made two weeks later and there are no redundant sources of data to verify that outcome, we have a single-point failure.  No one has any information to verify or dispute the outcome that was announced.

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.