# [EM] Let's Kill Two List Members with One Stone:

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Wed Mar 14 19:15:51 PST 2001

```Don said:

>>      I propose we execute a test ballot to include ten elections.
>      The first set of five elections will use five different methods on
>the
>same candidates.  The five methods to be: Approval, Borda, Bucklin,
>Condorcet, and Irving.

Not feasible. You're saying that it should be compulsory for participants to
vote in 10 elections. Voter's choice doesn't ask
anyone to vote more ballotings than they want to.

>      In order to give this test a bit more reality than favorite ice cream
>or favorite month, I suggest that we use all the candidates from the last
>presidential election for the first set of five elections.
>
>      The second set of five elections will use the five different methods
>as candidates in five elections using the same five methods themselves,
>with the understanding that the election of a method is only to determine
>the method to use in the current election of the presidential candidates.

We're taking nominations for the topic of a demonstration poll.

Are you nominating Presidential candidates for 2000? It sounds more
like you're decreeing it. I don't know whether or not that should
be called a "nomination".

>fear not, I will repeat.

No one need fear that Don won't repeat.

>>Note: We need to have a set of choices for each of five methods because we
>voters should have the right to vote differently with each method.

Voter's Choice assumes that everyone believes that his favorite
rank-count allows & rewards sincere voting.
>Second Note: At this point, everyone should realize that `Houston, we have
>a problem'.  After everyone has voted for one of five methods using the
>five methods, how do we resolve the different results to give us one method
>to use in the first set of elections. This is why I call Mike's system,
>silly.
>      We cannot use a method to judge itself. That is what Mike is trying
>to
>have us do.

Don is being an ass again. Voter's Choice doesn't use methods to judge
themselves. It allows voters to use the result of a method chosen by
them, to guide the placement of their Plurality vote. The voter
would designate the method that he believes will put his Plurality vote
on the best alternative that he can get.

Actually, Approval, rather than Plurality would be better as the
"base method". I used Plurality because it's official in the U.S.,
and because none of us here advocate it--avoiding any criticisms of
favoring someone. But Approval is such a small modification of Plurality
that it's surely permissible to use it as the base method.

I suggest, then, that the voter's approval votes go to the alternative
that his designated method has chosen, and also for all the alternatives
that he has ranked higher (or, lacking a ranking, has rated higher).

We are trying to use five methods to judge five methods.
>
>      The only valid way to solve this is to use the standard of `Repeating
>Ballots'.

It's better to not ask people to vote repeatedly.

>After we have the results of this ballot, we will publish the results and
>then have a repeat ballot.  The total number of ballots is limited to five.

You want to hold 5 separate elections? :-)

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________