[EM] Simplest Condorcet method to hand count?

[robert bristow-johnson]

One other thing that is somewhat apropos to the subject is that Condorcet methods are *Precinct Summable*.  So a recount can be done in a distributed fashion.  The ballot bags never need to be transported dozens or hundred kilometers to a central tallying location for the recount.

So if a recount, even a Condorcet recount (where there are N(N-1)/2 times the pile of ballots must be processed, but for IRV that number could be N-1, where N is the number of candidates), this laborious but simple work can be divided up among many separate groups of people, done in a single day, and the results are fully summable by *anyone* (the press, the competing campaigns, and the general public, as well as the officials that certify the outcome of the election).

It's distributed work.  It's quick, even for a state-wide or nationwide recount.  It's decentralized.  It's summable.  It's transparent in process.  Very hard to be dishonestly fixed.

This is one of two big reasons why I am such a hard-core Condorcet advocate.  The other is, of course, electing anyone other than the Condorcet winner is electing the wrong candidate and will violate Majority Rule and violating that causes our votes to not be counted equally.

--

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

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.

> On 05/22/2025 6:25 PM EDT Etjon Basha <etjonbasha at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> Yes, that setup seems foolproof to me, as long as the link exists between the ballots and individual machine counted and the actual bag.
> 
> The comment re serial numbers was not meant to be applied to the optical scan method, but to the method where you vote on a machine and get a printout to cast as a backup. You'd get this once you're out of the booth, and would only be able to verify in full view of the volunteers. The font one ID in the back would be too small to take a picture of anyway in this limited time, and once the ballot is cast would make linking to the actual voter impossible (assume a properly random ID).
> 
> Optical scams are better though, less to go wrong with them.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Etjon
> 
> 
> 
>