[EM] Missed nominations. Poll issues.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

James--

I'd said:

"MIKE OSSIPOFF" <nkklrp at hotmail.com> writes:
>Here is the ballot for the presidential poll. There are 24 candidates, 
>unless I've missed on, which isn't likely.

You replied:

	As I remember, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Robert Byrd were all
seconded. So I think that they should be on that list.

I reply:

Sorry about that. I just forgot them, and didn't find them when I read the 
poll e-mail when making the ballot. I throught that I'd read all the 
postings that mentioned the poll in their subject line, but maybe there were 
nominations in postings that didn't mention the poll in their subject lines.

Also, Al Gore was nominated too, and I forgot to include him too.

Were Zinn, Chomsky, Gore  & Byrd the only ones that I missed?

I'm going to post a new ballot that includes those.

It seems to me that the voting deadline should be a week after the 
_complete_ ballot is posted.

I'm going to go through all the postings posted since I proposed the poll, 
to look for other nominations.

You continued:

Also, I would like
to suggest that you'all rank Al Gore

I reply:

Gore was nominated--I just forgot to include him.

You continued:

(the incumbent ; )

I reply:

That's right--Gore is the legitimate incumbant president. That, by itself, 
is enough reason to include him in the poll even if he hadn't been 
nominated.

Of course he has a disadvantage: Our experience with him as vice-president.

It doesn't take any experience to recognize Kerry as the worst remaining 
Democrat, but some of the other Democrats have a chance of being better than 
Gore.

You continued:


	As for the methods being used, I noticed that plain ole IRV wasn't on
Mike's list. I suppose that's not too important, though, since the raw
data will be publicly available, and anyone who wants to can run an IRV
tally. So, yeah, I hope someone does that. Maybe I will, I dunno.

I reply:

Since the complete ballot hasn't been sent out yet, shouldn't we call that a 
nomination for IRV's inclusion?

Also, someone suggested a different way of counting the CR ratings, and I 
forgot to include that in the list of nominated methods. So I'll post a more 
complete list that includes the modified CR and ordinary IRV.

I'd nominate NES, but then I'd have to count it. I'd nominate SMA, but since 
I'm the one who is late in posting the complete ballot, it's questionable 
whether the late ballot should allow me to make a late nomination. But of 
course, nominated or not, there's no reason why I shouldn't post an SMA 
result after the pairwise matrix is posted. In fact, with that pairwise 
matrix, anyone could easily determine the SMA winner, from its posted 
definition.

You continued:

	Should I make the subject heading on my ballot "my ballot"?
I reply:

Yes, that's what I suggest, to make the ballots easy to recognize. The 
subject line needn't contain the voter's name, since that's automatically 
listed.

But if you modify your ballot, as you're allowed to at any time up to the 
voting deadline, as many times as you want to, it would be best to include 
the date and time in your subject line, just in case you post 2 ballots that 
post in order different from that in which you sent them.

Maybe this goes without saying, but I want to clarify it: It seems to me 
that even though this is a poll for the U.S. president, everyone anywhere 
should be able to have a vote that counts equally toward the winner by each 
method. We've all noticed how our presidents have an effect outside the U.S.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable access with MSN 9 Dial-up. Click here for Special Offer! 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/