[EM] The list's complete rejection of the poll

[Elisabeth Varin]

Relax Michael,

I have other things to do than learn about possible candidates for US
presidential election. But it is in my list.
It will come, all in good time.
Just wait...
I did not even found the time to answer 10 other EM
interesting posts.

Stéphane Rouillon

>From: "Michael Ossipoff" <mikeo2106 at msn.com>
>To: election-methods at electorama.com
>Subject: [EM] The list's complete rejection of the poll
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:59:41 +0000
>
>
>It calls for a little comment. A number of times before, I've proposed
>polls, and usually a number of people voted. Enough to do a meaningful,
>interesting count. This is the first one in which not even one person 
>(other
>than myself) voted.
>
>Obviously that's always a possibility. It was a possibility with each one 
>of
>the previous polls I conducted here. That never stopped me from proposing
>those polls, just as it didn't prevent me from proposing the current one.
>
>Likewise, one wouldn't offer any methods or criteria if one worried about
>"what if it isn't popular, or isn't accepted at all?" wv Condorcet was a
>proposal of mine that caught on pretty well. So did FBC. My other criteria
>got a little favorable attention. Steve Eppley proposed some related (but
>different) ones, and mentioned my (but not favorably). There was a little
>interest in the majority defensive strategy criteria, but fashon moves on,
>and I accept that, and it doesn't matter. I wanted to propose those 
>criteria
>because _I_ think they're important. That's all the reason I need to 
>propose
>something.
>
>Same with polls. I've said that you don't know how you feel about the
>methods, and you don't understand the methods, till you vote with them and
>count them. I stand by that statement. There should be a presidential EM
>poll. There is one. That's good enough.
>
>I've told a number of advantages of my poll over the usual Internet
>automated polls. Another advantage that I haven't mentioned yet is that,
>with list-posted ballots, you can obsereve the votes coming in, and can
>count them yourself--you can participate in a way that is impossible with 
>an
>automated Internet poll.
>
>Anyway, the list's complete rejection of the poll called for comment, so
>that's my comment.
>
>Mike Ossipoff
>
>
>----
>election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info