Let's Post Steve's Vote-Report to ER

[Mike Ossipoff]

Steve Eppley writes:
> 
> Mike O wrote:
> >Steve's posting of his vote-report to EM implies a proposal to
> >use that report, to post it to ER. I second that proposal. Does
> >anyone oppose that proposal?
> 
> I oppose.  
> 
> I never meant for that message to be our report to ER.  But assuming
> I correctly interpreted everyone's ballot and that my math is
> verified, I think most of it can be incorporated into our (longer)
> report. 

Well, it seems a complete report on the election results.
All it seems to need is the removal of the part about my
unfortunate statement about MPV being a runner-up, which it
isn't really; and for the MPV count to be done with the
2-1st-choices ballot counted as _full_ 1st choices for
both 1st choices, which I'm certain is what that voter wants.
Kevin didn't rank plain Condorcet & Smith//Condorcet 1st
so that he could give them each only half of a vote. So with
those tiny changes, your report seems quite complete & ready
to use. 

But if you don't propose using it, then my "second" isn't a
second, but is just a proposal. Would you agree that that report
is completed when the changes in the previous paragaraph have
been made?

> 
> Mike, do you mean you want us to post the result to ER first along 
> with a promise that we'll follow up with a longer report?

Absolutely. I advocate that because it's much quicker to report
the vote result than to wait till we've written our individual
conclusions, arguments & reports on the subject. And trying to
put together a consensus report on the sw topic would be especially
difficult, maybe impossible. And a collective report containing
collective, but non-consensus, statements, would require more
voting, which, though I wouldn't oppose it, would be very time-
consuming, and might never be completed.

So yes, I suggest we send a vote-report, and that your report,
with those small changes, would be a good one to send. If anyone
wants other changes, or to not change the MPV count as I
suggested, and if those changes aren't unacceptable to anyone,
then obviously that would be how it should be done. I'd agree
to any reasonable change, in order to get the report posted to
ER.

Then, once we've done the quick & easy part, reporting on the
vote, then would be (I claim) the right time for each of us
who wants to to write their individual conclusions & arguments
on the subject. Then I suggest we find out if there's anything
we can say with consensus. If not, that shouldn't be a problem.
Then, as you suggested, we should put these individual messages
together into 1 big message, & post it to ER as a collection
of individual statements. Anyway that's my proposal for how
to proceed.

Obviously someone would have to agree with me about doing it
that way, before we, as EM, could do that. If no one opposes
a proposal, and someone agrees with it or seconds it, then
it seems that we could get by without voting on it.

> 
> ---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)
> .-
> 


--