[pp.int.general] Electronic votes and safety + Election Results

[Boris Turovskiy]

On 20.04.2010 20:28, Perline-Parti Pirate (fr) wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> As the very new technical vote was "decided" in a few minutes, without any explanation of the real consequences.
> When it was too late, when everybody was tired.
>
> I am not sure that people voted with in mind the differences between this brand new system with the common votes.
>    
The "common votes" you refer to have only one argument speaking for them 
- that "it's how it's been done always", and that argument is really 
lame, as we all should know. The important thing is that the voters knew 
what to do (I suppose there was some confusion, but not because of the 
STV system itself but rather because of the co-president and board 
member votes being held on the same sheet). After that the vote counting 
by STV is among the most correct methods of determining the result.
> It was so confused that they did not checked if all the present PP delegates had voted.
> I know at least one who did not vote and nobody told to this representative of this country did not vote because, it was
> the confusion.
>
> I should like to see the ballots because we could have a simulation between the way it was counted (nobody in the
> assembly had no idea of really what it is, how it is made, what as the counts really), how it was entered in the
> software, and the way it should be counted with our common way of election.
>
> So I am sure that the mathematicians in this list<;-) should love to make this simulation to compare both results
>    
I'm completely in favor of such a simulation. The problem is that 
ballots for STV and "common" (plurylity) voting are entirely different 
so it's really difficult to compare:)
> - - the electronically count, and I am not sure that I understood right how it works : the "first of the list has more
> points that the second one". For me it means that if somebody has its name on all the ballots at the end of the list, he
> has less chances to be elected that somebody who is present in half of the paper but at the top of the list.
>
> - - the common count : one name anywhere in the list, one point.
>    
Nope, what you describe is not "classic" but approval voting, of which I 
personally am a big fan (as my German party friends know;). It has its 
own issues, however.
> At the contrary, no women, no outside Europe elected IS a big deal, everybody should be upset of.
> But this is another problem, and for this, I can tell that I am really, really really disappointed.
>    
Sure. 2 out of 12 candidates were female (of them, one was a remote 
candidate, which lowers chances greatly). 3 out of 12 candidates were 
from outside Europe (all 3 remote).
That they didn't get elected should be blamed on discrimination, 
europocentrism, male chauvinism and all the other bad things of this 
world, just not on common sense.

Best regards,
Boris