From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV |
Date: | 2009-12-14 14:51:54 |
Message-ID: | 20091214145154.GA4604@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-general |
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Markus Schulze writes ("Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV"):
> > in my opinion, the Schulze STV method is
> > the best multi-winner election method:
>
> Thanks for pointing us to that. Interesting reading.
>
> I wouldn't support such a thing for a public governmental election,
> because of the need for computer involvement. Public elections should
> be done with simple and readily verifiable processes - ie, pencil and
> paper.
This is nonsense. As far as I can tell, in the method Markus proposes
ballots can be cast with just pencil and paper -- which is the important
part on which pencil and paper should be used. The result counting part
is going to involve computers *anyway*, but since the input data (filled
ballots) is available and verifiable, this is not a problem because
different parties can have their own software.
--
Alvaro Herrera Vendo parcela en Valdivia:
http://valdivia.vivastreet.cl/loteos-lotes+valdivia/parcela-en-cabo-blanco--valdivia/19288372
"Si quieres ser creativo, aprende el arte de perder el tiempo"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jimmy Kaplowitz | 2009-12-14 14:57:57 | Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV |
Previous Message | Ian Jackson | 2009-12-14 13:19:13 | Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV |