[EM] Simplest Condorcet method to hand count?

[Etjon Basha]

Hi Steve,

I think the weak link is between  the auditable voter action and what I see
tallied as a result. As long as there is some way to connect the two, an
electronic count is as foolproof as a hand count. If not, it's not.

voting on paper ballots which are then input into a machine for fast
counting would do it, and I've seen it done. There must be a way to link
the entry with the ballot though, otherwise an after-the-fact audit is
impossible. I think there's no such link in these systems, though you could
film the entire counting sequence, which I've also seen done. A very time
consuming audit, but an audit nonetheless would be to just watch the reel
and see if your data matches the system inputs. Perhaps this is more
widespread than I suspect, but AFAIK it isn't done. The one instance we
tried it back home, it was discontinued.

Voting on a machine which prints a copy also would work as long as the
printout had a random 60 digit, font size 1 ID on the back to link them.
I'm not aware of any such systems.

In practice, these things appear to be as low effort as possible, and the
stakes do not seem to translate into operational security. Parties just
trust a spotless record....until they don't.

Regards,

Etjon



On Fri, 23 May 2025, 12:27 am Steve Eppley via Election-Methods, <
election-methods at lists.electorama.com> wrote:

> Hi Etjon,
>
> Because of the high stakes, there's also an opposite incentive, to keep an
> initially foolproof election system foolproof.
>
> Nearly anyone could verify the result of a disputed machine count in which
> a copy of the ballots verified by independent or multi-partisan observers
> is published online in a downloadable format.  I'm assuming the tallying
> software is open source, available for free installation on smartphones,
> and has been audited by some public interest groups you trust.  If you're
> really paranoid, you could shuffle the downloaded ballots and globally
> replace the candidate IDs with dummy IDs, to check whether this changes the
> result.  People you trust could publish examples and their expected
> results, to test your software.
>
> If you can't trust independent or multi-partisan observers to verify the
> accuracy of a copy of the ballots, I don't understand how could you have
> more trust in a hand-count.
>
> Regarding simplicity of explanation... The voting system that I believe is
> best (Maximize Affirmed Majorities) on the criterion I think is most
> important (create a strong incentive for politicians to support
> majority-preferred policies) seems simple enough to explain with the aid of
> two simple examples: "Count all the head-to-head majorities.  Then process
> the head-to-head majorities one at a time, from largest majority to
> smallest majority, placing each majority's more-preferred candidate ahead
> of their less-preferred candidate in the order of finish." (To my eye,
> Nanson isn't simpler.)  The first example would have 3 candidates (perhaps
> named Left, Center and Right) and a Condorcet winner (Center).  The second
> example would have 3 candidates (perhaps named Rock, Scissors and Paper)
> and a majority cycle.
>
> --Steve Eppley
>
>
> On 5/22/2025 8:59 AM, Etjon Basha wrote:
>
> 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
>>
> ----
> 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/20250523/95318086/attachment.htm>