Suchergebnisse

Prepared under contract/grant no. FE6AC011 by authority of and for the Federal Election Commission, Clearinghouse on Election Administration. ; "PB-270 727, PB-270 728, PB-270 729." ; May 1977. ; Cover title. ; v. 1. Recommended procurement procedures and a review of current equipment.--v. 2. A summary of state voting equipment laws.--v. 3. A guide for legislative drafting. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The introduction of technology into voting systems can bring a number of benefits, such as improving accessibility, remote voting, and efficient, accurate processing of votes. A voting system that uses electronic technology in any part of processing the votes, from vote capture and transfer through to vote tallying, is known as an e-voting system. In addition to the undoubted benefits, the introduction of such technology introduces particular security challenges, some of which are unique to voting systems because of their specific nature and requirements. The key role that voting systems play in democratic elections means that such systems must not only be secure and trustworthy, but must be seen by the electorate to be secure and trustworthy. This chapter emphasizes the challenge to reconcile the secrecy of the ballot, with demonstrable correctness of the result. © 2013 Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction -- 2. Preliminaries -- 3. Social Welfare Function, Social Choice Function and Voting Procedures -- 4. First Problem: Cyclic Majorities -- 4.1. The Condorcet paradox -- 4.2. How to conceal the problem: the amendment procedure -- 4.3. How common are the cycles -- 4.4. Solutions based on ordinal preferences -- 4.5. Solution based on scoring function: the Borda count -- 4.6. More general majority cycles -- 5. Second Problem: How to Satisfy the Condorcet Criteria -- 5.1. Condorcet criteria -- 5.2. Some complete successes -- 5.3. Some partial successes -- 5.4. Complete failures -- 5.5. Some probability considerations and the plausibility of the Condorcet criteria -- 5.6. The majority winning criterion -- 6. Third Problem: How the Avoid Perverse Response to Changes in Individual Opinions -- 6.1. Monotonicity and related concepts -- 6.2. Successes -- 6.3. Failures -- 6.4. The relevance of the monotonicity criteria -- 7. Fourth Problem: How to Honour Unanimous Preferences -- 7.1. Unanimity and Pareto conditions -- 7.2. Successes -- 7.3. A partial failure and a total failure -- 7.4 Relevance and compatibility with other criteria -- 8. Fifth Problem: How to Make Consistent Choices -- 8.1. Choice set invariance criteria -- 8.2. Performances with respect to consistency -- 8.3. Performances with respect to WARP and PI -- 8.4. The relevance of the criteria -- 9. Sixth Problem: How to Encourage the Sincere Revelation of Preferences -- 9.1. Manipulability -- 9.2. Performance with respect to manipulability -- 9.3. The difficulty of manipulation -- 9.4. Agenda-manipulability -- 9.5. Sincere truncation of preferences -- 10. Social Choice Methods Based on More detailed information about Individual Preferences -- 10.1. The von Neumann-Morgenstern utility and classes of interpersonal comparability -- 10.2. Old and new methods -- 10.3. An assessment -- 11. Asking for Less Than Individual Preference Orderings -- 11.1. Constructing a social preference order for a subset of alternatives -- 11.2. Results based on individual choice functions -- 12. Why Is There So Much Stability and How Can We Get More of It? -- 12.1. Explanations of stability -- 12.2. Improving the performance of the voting procedures -- 13. From Committees to Elections -- 13.1. Proportional and majoritarian systems -- 13.2. Criteria for proportional systems -- 13.3. Voting power -- 14. Conclusions -- Name Index.

Democracy acknowledges its members as free and equal by recognising them as full political agents rather than mere beneficiaries of policies chosen by others and by granting them the opportunity to exercise this role without incurring excessive burdens. This does not require that they directly participate in the decision-making process, because this form of participation would be particularly demanding and it will be limited to a few decisions. To properly embody the democratic ideal, citizens must have the opportunity to shape the political process and to challenge the choices made if these choices do not respond to their interests or ideas.

Talks about voting privileges and functions of the Chamber of Commerce were delivered yesterday at the weekly luncheon of the Panama City Kiwanis Club in the Dixie-Sherman Hotel. ; Uploaded to CONTENTdm 2008-02-05. Moved to Islandora, November 2016.

As he prepares to leave Parliament after two decades of service, the Presiding Officer of Australia's Senate offers his reflections on one modernizing proposal that is often made to improve the functioning of the House but that could end up increasing the distance between Parliamentarians and the public. Adapted from the source document.

28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference Scientific/Research Proceedings, San Diego, 2013 ; It is critical that all adults be able to successfully and independently engage in the voting process. In order to ensure that this is possible, individuals with disabilities must be included in usability evaluations of accessible voting systems, and the present paper defines standardized evaluation criteria and benchmarks for including blind, visually impaired, and dexterity limited individuals in testing. While voting accuracy is always the most important measure of any voting system, additional factors disproportionately impact individuals with disabilities, which can make the voting process difficult and painful if not properly controlled. As a result, the authors propose the use of revised Voluntary Voting System Guidelines and Voting Performance Protocol measures for total completion score, voter inclusion index, and perfect ballot index, as well as two new measures, voting time and interactions, to determine whether a system should be considered acceptable for people with disabilities. These new measures are necessary to ensure that the voting process can be successfully and reasonably completed by individuals with disabilities.

Voting systems aggregate preferences efficiently and are often used for deciding conservation priorities. Desirable characteristics of voting systems include transitivity, completeness, and Pareto optimality, among others. Voting systems that are common and potentially useful for environmental decision making include simple majority, approval, and preferential voting. Unfortunately, no voting system can guarantee an outcome, while also satisfying a range of very reasonable performance criteria. Furthermore, voting methods may be manipulated by decision makers and strategic voters if they have knowledge of the voting patterns and alliances of others in the voting populations. The difficult properties of voting systems arise in routine decision making when there are multiple criteria and management alternatives. Because each method has flaws, we do not endorse one method. Instead, we urge organizers to be transparent about the properties of proposed voting systems and to offer participants the opportunity to approve the voting system as part of the ground rules for operation of a group.