Brief Unauthorized Vote Announcement

[donald at mich.com]

Mike writes,
>The posting to ER of the results of our recommendation vote is
>taking more months than I'd expected.

Don writes: Maybe - just maybe Steve is afraid that the dropping of that
bomb on [ER] will cause the list to lose a number of members (would you
believe forty). Steve is aware of losses in the [ER] list. Steve is correct
when he says that technical material belongs on the [EM] list.



Mike writes: >I'm going to post a brief, individual, unauthorized
announcement of the result,

Don writes: Brief is the operative word here - say who won - give web site
address where a full report can be obtained - pat yourself on the back -
take a bow - get off stage. (We do not want to lose any more [ER] members.)

Don writes: Maybe Rob will put the report on his web site - if you cannot
get a site I'll put it on our web site (bite your tongue - we perfer not to
have that report at our site).



Mike writes: How long should it remain secret?

Don writes: two years would be nice (with option to renew for two more).



Mike writes:>
>Don said, on ER, that our report was lost somewhere. Wouldn't we
>all like the recommendation to be available to ER members?

SLIGHT CORRECTION: Don made those remarks on the [EM] list. I send a Reply
to a post Steve made on the [ER] list but I replied on the [EM] list. I
have not mentioned The Report on the [ER] list. Your secret about the
existence of The Secret Report is safe with me (it's in the vault).

Don writes: If [EM] has the report on some web site then the report is
available to [ER] members. (not our site I hope).



Mike contunues to write:(and write)
>Steve's report is better than my announcement. Steve's report is
>much more complete, detailed, informative. It will probably eventually
>be posted, I hope. Maybe before the Presidential election, maybe not.
>What's the advantage of my announcement then? I can't post Steve's
>report to ER without permission, but I can post my own announcement.
>My announcement will make clear that it isn't authorized by ER.
>Here's how it will go:
>This announcement was written & posted by me, Mike Ossipoff. It
>was not written or posted by EM, and its writing or posting was
>not discussed in EM, except that I stated, 48 hours in advance, that
>I would post it to ER. So this announcement is by & from me, not by
>or from EM. Still, the facts in it are accurate.
>After much discussion & debate, over a long period, EM voted on what
>single-winner method to recommend to ER members, as a good method to
>propose to the public, for use in public political single-winner
>elections.
>The winner was a method known as Smith-Condorcet (it will be defined
>later in this brief message).
>But if Smith-Condorcet were removed from the rankings, the winner would
>be Condorcet's method, also referred to as plain Condorcet.
>(It will likewise be defined in this message)
>The election wasn't close. Smith-Condorcet won very decisively,
>and Condorcet's method's 2nd place status was decisive.
>A muh more complete & thorough report of the vote result will
>soon be posted to ER. After that, a message from EM will soon be
>posted here that contains individuals' comments & conclusions about
>the methods. This is probably more acceptable to ER members than
>a debate on ER about the methods' relative merits.
>[Definitions of these 2 methods would be next in my announcement to
>ER]

Don writes: THIS!!! is not a brief announcement - this is a small bomb (it
is brief for Mike).



Mike writes:>
>48 hours after the time stated in the "Date:" line of this
>message, I'll post that announcement on ER.

Don writes: So Soon! - I must get ready (we have been warned - maybe Steve
will let us know if the [ER] list loses any members).
Good Night All (say good night Mike)



>
>Mike
>
>