Probably the simplest way to get it made public would be to get an MP to ask a question in the House...
Best, Ursula
___________
Ursula Huws
Professor of Labour and Globalisation
University of Hertfordshire
-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jane Galbraith
Sent: 15 April 2011 09:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The AV "algorithm"
The counting system must be in the public domain.
What do we need to do to get the algorithm used in the London mayoral
election made public? What about the Welsh and Scottish and GLA elections?
It's no fun going through such formulae but it needs to be done by one or
more independent bodies.
Jane
Mrs Jane Galbraith
Honorary Senior Research Associate
Statistics Advisory
Department of Statistical Science
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
[log in to unmask]
> The "computer program" solution was exactly what was used in the London
> Mayoral election last time around.
>
> All the ballot papers were scanned (which took hours longer than it had
> been expected to) and then a computer system worked out the combinations
> of first and second choices before declaring Boris the winner.
>
> The flaw of the whole system is its closed nature; I was there as an
> election observer with the Open Rights Group and our main concern was
> that no one had a clue what the computer was doing and whether the
> result was correct. The views of the group ranged from the sane "it is
> probably accurate, honest and right, but we don't know this for certain"
> to the rather over the top "it's clearly a fiddle and a massive
> conspiracy"! To be fair, though, the election committee did have three
> independent individuals who were given all the raw data and allowed to
> create their own algorithms to check the result.
>
> One of the interesting points of the day was speaking to the Election
> Commission observer who was an Australian (where they use a similar
> transferable vote system, but count by hand). She declared that the
> computers were pointless and, had this been an election in Oz, they
> would have finished the count hours earlier and been in the bar for five
> hours already by the time we get the result!
>
> Ultimately, though, we never found out what the in-built flow charts and
> algorithms were - possibly because this information is commercially
> sensitive for the private business that ran the computers and scanners.
>
> Daryl
>
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|