Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mathematicians: Elections Flawed

Posted by Hemos on from the looking-at-the-math dept.

Nader-licious writes "Science News Online reports: 'With recent reports of malfunctioning voter machines and uncounted votes during primaries in Florida, Maryland, and elsewhere, reformers are once again clamoring for extensive changes. But while attention is focused on these familiar irregularities, a much more serious problem is being neglected: the fundamental flaws of the voting procedure itself. Mathematics are shedding light on questions about how well different voting procedures capture the will of the voters.' The verdict: the U.S. system might be the worst of the lot."

4 of 551 comments (clear)

  1. FP! that was easy by WhiteChocolate42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    US the worst? You don't need math to figure that out, you just need to look at the results.

  2. Voting What the founders intended by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do not forget that the foudner sof this country never intedned the common man or women to choose our president..

    Thats why we have delegates to pick president instead of popular vote..

    The founders felt that the common man or wome was to stupid to effectively pick a president of a country..

    and the funny part is that they are right..when was the last time the common man and women of this country rejected what media and lobbyists tell us and vote with our minds and hearts? Not in the past 50 yearsd has this happened..

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  3. I'm shocked! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Funny

    The verdict: the U.S. system might be the worst of the lot.

    Shocking! And here I clicked on a Slashdot story thinking I would find that the US was the best of the lot! This is so unexpected!!

    ;)

  4. The math is off... by BlueGecko · · Score: 3, Funny
    Guys, take a look at a quote like this:
    Saari has calculated that in three-candidate elections, depending on the voting system, more than two-thirds of all possible configurations of voters' preferences will yield different outcomes.
    Now, think about this for a second. There are three candidates, and therefore three possible outcomes, and Saari has calculated (are you braced properly for this?) that not only are all three wins possible, but no matter who you pick, there is a better chance that either of the other two will win. Damn is that a lose-lose situation.

    Is it just me, or do other people get a bit jittery when they read quotes like this in an article in mathematics? That quote is in the first half painfully obvious and in the second half just wrong, and it's the simplest math in the article, so how should I know that the more advanced math isn't equally as screwy?