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

[Michael Garman]

>  My goodness.  I think I'm dealing with a Trumper.

I don't know too many Trumpers who run socialist campaigns, do you?

>> "Secure" is not equivalent semantically (nor in reality) to "compatible
with risk-limiting audits".

Risk-limiting audits are a secure verification procedure. IRV and FPP are
both compatible with a secure procedure. Therefore they are both, at least
in one sense, equally secure. Precinct summability isn't the be-all or
end-all of "security," either.


On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:03 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On 03/20/2024 3:59 PM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have been a poll worker. I know what I’m talking about.
> >
>
> Your words don't suggest that.
>
> > > > IRV is compatible with risk limiting audits.
> > >
> > > That doesn't say shit. So is FPTP.
> >
> > That’s the point — it’s just as secure.
> >
>
> No it's not.  This is how I *know* now that you are blatantly disingenuous.
>
> "Secure" is not equivalent semantically (nor in reality) to "compatible
> with risk-limiting audits".
>
> When it's not Precinct Summable, then you have to consider where the
> source of the original information you're using to do the audit.
>
> My goodness.  I think I'm dealing with a Trumper.
>
> --
>
> r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
> .
> .
> .
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240320/631003f5/attachment.htm>