<div dir="auto">Hi Steve,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Etjon </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 23 May 2025, 12:27 am Steve Eppley via Election-Methods, <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Etjon,</p>
<p>Because of the high stakes, there's also an opposite incentive,
to keep an initially foolproof election system foolproof.</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>--Steve Eppley</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 5/22/2025 8:59 AM, Etjon Basha
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">Hi Steve,
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I skipped the justification for seeking a hand
count as I fear the broader discussion may derail beyond the
scope of the mailing list.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But in brief, I have little faith in electronic
voting as a social (as opposed to an actual) technology. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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).</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Given that we vote so we don't fight, it is
imperative that this shouldn't happen.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Also doesn't hurt that hand countable methods
tend to be simpler to explain, but this is secondary.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Regards,</div>
<div dir="auto">Etjon</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 22 May 2025, 10:07 pm
Steve Eppley via Election-Methods, <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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?<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
--Steve Eppley<br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/22/2025 6:40 AM, Etjon Basha via Election-Methods wrote:<br>
> Good evening gentlemen,<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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. <br>
><br>
> Assuming we agree on this (which you might not) is there
any practical Condorcet method can can be hand counted? <br>
><br>
> 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. <br>
><br>
> Yet, I suspect this task can at least be completed within
acceptable timeframes with an acceptable error rate by most
volunteers.<br>
><br>
> (Interestingly, Gemini considers Copeland easier to hand
count than Nanson, which I disagree with)<br>
><br>
> Are there any simpler methods I'm unaware off, despite
any other shortcomings such a method might have?<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Etjon<br>
><br>
> ----<br>
> Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a>
for list info<br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a>
for list info<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote></div>