[EM] Regarding the poll

Sat Apr 13 00:17:16 PDT 2002

Mr. Ossipoff,

I understand, I do not have the time to read everything myself either.

Thank you for the ranking pair equality tie-breaker rules,
I will keep them.

>I believe that Stephane said that there'd be a count as soon as there
>are 3 voters. It's occurred to me that it would be prudent to
>vote for Bucklin too, under the conditions where I said I'd vote
>for all of my nominees but Bucklin. So I'd like to change my vote
>in that way.

You will vote in time. Relax and go see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Electoral_systems_designers/

>Also, I rembember now that Stephane said that the votes were to be
>sent directly to him rather than being posted to EM, but both of the
>1st 2 voters, including me, forgot that.

Mr. Davison is not registered yet. He will officially propose
candidates just after and vote later.

>Anyway, Stephane, what's the result of the 1st count?

I will post a summary to the EM list after each iteration.
Iteration 1 for the single-winner election has not started yet.
I wait for a third member.

>Do you agree that
>it should be by Approval?
No, I responded previously.

>Should we wait for a nomination period before
>considering the votes final and counting them? If so, then of course
>that nomination period needn't be repeated for subsequent ballotings
>in the sequence of ballotings.
I was hoping it would start slow so I could have a "rodage" period.
I will announce all candidatures just before each election.
I have no idea how to determine the voting period end.
We will resolve this issue between Electoral_systems_designers members.

See you later, I have a lot of reading to do.

Steph.

FFrom election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com  Sat Apr 13 01:37:47 2002
Received: (from smartlst at localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA05412;
	Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:37:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:37:19 -0700
From: DEMOREP1 at aol.com
Message-ID: <94.24ade2d5.29e9481c at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 04:36:44 EDT
Subject: Re: parliamentary single-winner choices
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 85
Resent-Message-ID: <"J_pr4.0.OK1.-u-jy"@mx1>
Resent-From: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Reply-To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com> archive/latest/8016
X-Loop: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com

In a message dated 4/13/02 1:24:31 AM, Mr. Ossipoff wrote:

<<People who study single-winner methods agree that it makes more
sense, and avoids proposal-order strategies, to vote on the
proposal and the status-quo, and the amendments to the proposal,
all in one balloting, using a good voting system>>

----
D- Some things are YES/ NO *substantive* (like -- should Z be done by public 
officers ???) and other things are filling the blanks (with numbers) - such 
as shall X public officers be doing Z ???

In other words-- dividing the question -- often done using Robert's Rules of 
Order.   

If the doing of Z fails (gets a NO majority), then there is no X to ask about.

rom election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com  Sat Apr 13 01:37:47 2002
Received: (from smartlst at localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA05397;
	Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:37:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:37:18 -0700
From: DEMOREP1 at aol.com
Message-ID: <196.5594217.29e94819 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 04:36:41 EDT
Subject: RE: Criteria definitions
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 85
Resent-Message-ID: <"sjqz32.0.GK1.-u-jy"@mx1>
Resent-From: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Reply-To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com> archive/latest/8015
X-Loop: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com

Mr. Ossipoff wrote-

For the other definitions, let me define sincere voting:

A voter votes sincerely if he doesn't falsify a preference, or
fail to vote a sincere preference that the balloting system in use would
allow him to vote in addition to the preferences that he actually
does vote.
--
D- The standard divided majority example--

Initial polling results (supposedly *true*/*sincere*) -- (note the divided 
majority -- with A or B deemed extremely really rotten by some or all of the 
C voters).

26 AB
25 BA
49 C
100

Let us guess what happens next *insincerely* / *falsely* -- WHATEVER method 
is being used to actually determine the winner.

Is there some lie detector test for insincere/ false votes ???