[EM] Approval vs Condorcet. Voting in Approval.

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 05/16/2024 2:04 AM EDT Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> …
> Count-fraud is a problem. Condorcet’s humungously computation-intensive count ridiculously facilitates count-fraud.

I consider Condorcet to be precinct summable with no more than N^2 number of tallies.  I think 16 tallies for 4 candidates is feasible.  Even 25 tallies for 5 candidates.

The N(N-1)/2 pairwise comparison are done as the ballot is scanned by the tabulator machine.  That part is opaque, but the rest of it is completely transparent and the complexity is small.

Unlike IRV has been, Condorcet RCV can have election results on election night.

> …
> You want to do a handcount-audit of a Condorcet count?

Hand-counting Condorcet is processing the pile of ballots N(N-1)/2 times.  Hand-counting IRV is processing the pile of ballots N-1 times.

> …
> Additionally, the count-program itself is easier to hide or add fraud-code in.

But, this is only at the tabulator level.  When the ballot is inserted into the tabulator.

No different than we have now with FPTP.  That part of the data trail is opaque to protect the Secret Ballot.  But the rest of it can be transparent with Condorcet RCV, as it already is with FPTP.

> …
> As a general principle, then yes it’s much better to have the voters do it for themselves rather than having a complicated fraud-prone automatic-machine do everything for them.

Pick a precinct and hand count it.  Not much worse than IRV.

Results are summable.  Not so with IRV.

This is pretty transparent.

--

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

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.