[EM] A few poll comments

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Just as I did when I proposed the poll, I continue to proceed is if there will be interest and participation
in the poll. I should do so whether or not it later turns out that there is interest and participation.

There have only been 7 parties nominated (by me), with the Republicans and Democrats divided
into five subgroups. So, 7 parties or 10 parties and party-subgroups.

Though the Directory of U.S. Political Parties (if that's its accurate name), findable on the Internet,
lists a _lot_ of parties, the 7 that I nominated adequately cover the political spectrum in the U.S.

It turns out that it's advantageous to have so few "candidates" in this mock election, because people
on EM have suggested two additional ballotings: 3-slot, and IRV3/AV3.

That brings the number of ballotings to five:

1. Approval (where, optionally, voters can use any one of the other voting methods that I've offered)

2. Score Voting (Unless someone suggests otherwise, I suggest voting as you would in an actual
Score-Voting election, which may or may no be sincere). I suggest a range of 0-99.

3. 3-Slot Rankings (or ratings). No special balloting features. 

4. Unlimited Rankings. No special balloting features.

5. IRV3/AV3

For every voting method of more than 2 slots, I suggest the availability of the AERLO option, because
it's useful in every such method, and therefore is not method-specific.

Though I wouldn't publicly propose AERLO until I'm sure it wouldn't spoil FBC compliance, I'm certain
that a highly improbable FBC violation wouldn't be a problem in EM voting. If I knew that AERLO
caused an FBC violation, I wouldn't suggest its use, even here. Since I don't know yet, I'll assume that
it doesn't have that problem and that it will qualify as a good public proposal. Any such unlikely FBC
problem that it might have wouldn't be a problem in an EM poll.

Anyway, with so many ballotings, it wouldn't do to have a lot of "candidates". Five ballotings are manageabe
and feasible when there are only 7 parties.

Still, of course anyone should feel free to nominate others. But be conscious of the need to keep the
candidate-number down, due to the relatively large number of ballotings (five).

The nominations deadline is January 15th, at 0 hours, 1 minute, GMT (UT).

And I repeat that you don't really know what you think of the methods, what it would be like to use them,
what problems they have, etc., until you actually do use them. That's why polling, fairly frequent polling,]
is absolutely essential at a mailing list that discusses voting systems.  

Voting systems can't meaningfully or usefully be discussed without finding out what it's like to actually
use them.

To the person who feels "why should I go along with what _you_ say? Who appointed you?", I answer that,
if someone else had proposed a poll, that would have been fine with me. I waited a long time. So, then, why
accept my poll? How about because it's the only political mock election that has been proposed in the past few months. I don't
know how recent the most recent mock political election on EM is. We did one in 2004.

And note that I specifically and systematically want to avoid any dictatorialness regarding this poll.

I nominated 7 parties, but I don't claim exclusive right to nominate parties.

I suggested three ballotings, but I don't claim exclusive right to decide that either. Two people have suggested
additional ballotings. 

My exclusive role in this poll pretty much ended with my proposing it. After that, I intend
for it to be a collective project, and I claim no exclusive or special right to decision-input.

Related to this poll, only one suggestion is exclusively my own: That there be a poll. Beyond that, I claim
no special input.

Yes, I intend to do a Voter's Choice count, if there is participation and if voters designate a method, but that,
too, isn't an exclusive right: Anyone can count any of the ballotings however they want to.

Some might be bothered by the fact that I've offered my conditional voting methods as options in the Approval
election. But note that they're _options_.  Obviously, anyone else could suggest other options, and anyone
could use, or not use, any option. Likewise for the AERLO option.

Mike Ossipoff





 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120112/29e61df6/attachment-0002.htm>