[EM] Simplest Condorcet method to hand count?

[Etjon Basha]

Hi Steve,

I skipped  the justification for seeking a hand count as I fear the broader
discussion may derail beyond the scope of the mailing list.

But in brief, I have little faith in electronic voting as a social (as
opposed to an actual) technology.

You absolutely can make an electronic count foolproof (vote on a machine,
which prints your vote for you to review, which vote you then deposit in a
box, the algorithm meanwhile counts within seconds of the polling close and
any box can be opened by any party to check the system inputs, etc).

But in practice, if it ever starts as foolproof, it ceases to be so in
time, given the high stakes. Systems deteriorate, and social system more
than any. Eventually this or that guarantee is removed or left to become
obsolete, and after enough time there's little stopping a popular loosing
candidate from calling the whole thing into question.

 Given that we vote so we don't fight, it is imperative that this shouldn't
happen.

Hence why I have a special interest in what improvements one can make given
what I perceive to be a key limitation: you have to believe it.

Also doesn't hurt that hand countable methods tend to be simpler to
explain, but this is secondary.

Regards,

Etjon



On Thu, 22 May 2025, 10:07 pm Steve Eppley via Election-Methods, <
election-methods at lists.electorama.com> wrote:

> Etjon, you didn't say why you think hand-counting is important.  If your
> goal is to allow an election to be counted by a society that can't even
> afford a cheap smartphone, I don't think this cost is a show-stopping
> barrier, since smartphones are ubiquitous.  So why settle for an inferior
> tallying algorithm?
>
> Given a smartphone or pc, a person could type the contents of ranked
> ballots into text files, one ballot per row.  (The names of the candidates
> or parties or propositions can be abbreviated using agreed initials, to
> reduce labor.)  Given multiple phones, the labor could be shared among
> multiple typists.  If the group is small, one typist (the group's
> secretary) should suffice.  The text file(s) can be pasted into tallying
> software installed once (in advance) on the phone or pc (or at a website,
> given an internet connection).
>
> It's probably quicker & less error-prone to type the ballots into text
> files and verify by eye that the text files accurately represent the paper
> ballots than to count by hand and verify by hand the accuracy of the
> counting.  Typing & verifying text file copies wouldn't require any
> experience with or understanding of the tallying algorithm.  And it would
> allow tallying by multiple algorithms at no extra labor cost, for the
> purpose of comparing different algorithms.
>
> --Steve Eppley
>
>
> On 5/22/2025 6:40 AM, Etjon Basha via Election-Methods wrote:
> > Good evening gentlemen,
> >
> > I've been pondering the above issue, and already consulted Gemini who
> disagrees with me on the practicality of pairwise matrices, so couldn't
> help a lot.
> >
> > I suspect that compiling pairwise matrices in the context of a hand
> counted election would be very time consuming, and quite prone to errors
> and challenges from all parties.
> >
> > Assuming we agree on this (which you might not) is there any practical
> Condorcet method can can be hand counted?
> >
> > I suspect Nanson is a reasonable candidate. Yes, it still requires
> log(candidates,2) counting rounds, and each of those rounds require sending
> a matrix of how many times each candidate was ranked in which position to a
> central location, so quite the bother indeed.
> >
> > Yet, I suspect this task can at least be completed within acceptable
> timeframes with an acceptable error rate by most volunteers.
> >
> > (Interestingly, Gemini considers Copeland easier to hand count than
> Nanson, which I disagree with)
> >
> > Are there any simpler methods I'm unaware off, despite any other
> shortcomings such a method might have?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Etjon
> >
> > ----
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20250522/af76824e/attachment.htm>