[LINK] New proposal for e-voting - Turnbull

Richard rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Sun Sep 15 15:58:19 AEST 2013

On 15/09/13 3:25 PM, Roger Clarke wrote:
>> At 02:44 PM 15/09/2013, Richard wrote:
>>> Just how does anyone propose to put 110 candidates on one screen without
>>> making it like "reading a newspaper through a keyhole"?
> Crispin Hull (ex-CanbTimes Dep Ed, these days a columnist and at
> UCan) proposes a refinement to above-the-line voting.
> Rather than adopting a group's whole how-to-vote card, a vote above
> the line would vote for the members of the group, in the order in
> which the group declared them on their card.
> The voter would then continue numbering along the top of the ballot
> paper.  In effect a 1 for a group would lock in votes 1 to 6, a 2 for
> a group would lock in votes 7-12, et seq.
> He advocates optional preferential, meaning that instead of:
> -   number every box, beginning at 1, and assign numbers in sequence,
>       up to the number of boxes above the line
> it would become:
> -   number every box, beginning at 1, and assign numbers in sequence,
>       but with the option of stopping at any time
> Caveat:  I'm interpreting just a few words of his column yesterday:
> http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2013/09/14/more-serious-that-huntin-shootin-and-fishin/
Roger, Jan,

Yes to Senate electoral reform, and also yes to above-the-line 
preferential, if we can solve the problem of how to prevent it excluding 
all independents (the genuinely non-aligned, who therefore have no group 
entry above the line).

I don't think it solves the "keyhole" - the UI problem. There were 45 
groups on the NSW Senate ticket, and you still need the kiosk screen to 
be readable.

Neither of these solve the problem of inclusiveness, however.


More information about the Link mailing list