[EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections

Sat Apr 6 18:53:54 PDT 2024

First of all, I don’t know how meaningful it is to speak of someone
“running” the poll. The nominations are there, regardless of who is
nominally "running" the poll.

As for the poll-counting method, as I mentioned, Schulze is the longtime
established favorite, & is implemented in  probably numerous
Internet-calculators, & its count-algorithm software is probably already
possessed by a number of people here.  ...& it's implemented at CIVS, where
we could do a private poll by Schulze...conveniently being able to count it
by 4 other methods to, just by selecting them.

...& automatically get an output-ranking, a finishing-order by Schulze.

When I prop;osed the poll, I suggested Schulze, & there was good reason&
support for that suggestion. As I said a new-invention-method would be
inappropriate & unrepresentative of EM.

Obviously anyone can count the rankings as they choose. But I suggest that
Schulze's output-ranking is the one that can reasonably be said to be most
representative off EfM, due to Schulze's longtime favoriteness here.

Admittedly it's inconvenient that I've blocked 4 people, though I told good
reasons for doing so in each instance. But, I want to know what the
nominations & ballots are, & maybe they won't always be re-posted. So, to
hear what's nominated & voted in the poll,  I'm  *probvisionally*
unblocking 3 of the 4 people that I've blocked. But not Toby, because he's
still perpetrating his conduct.for which he was blocked.

Likewise, the nomination & voting periods that I suggested seem reasonable,
&* it would be irregular & counterproductive to argue for changing them.

Any changes argued-for, for the poll, should be clearly justified, because
changes without a reason are unhelpful in any group-project.

Because I've blocked 4 people, & haven't yet unblocked the 3 that I intend
to unblock, I hope that someone whom I haven't blocked will post updates of
the nominations-list. That's a reasonable request. Obviously my updates
won't be reliably-complete until I've unblocked those 3 persons.

Now, to answer this message:

On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 17:00 Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods at votefair.org> wrote:

> On 4/6/2024 4:12 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>  > Updated list of nominations, in order of nomination:
>  > ...
>
> For this poll I nominate RCIPE, Ranked Choice Including Pairwise
> Elimination (pronounced as "recipe").
>

Alright, we all received that nomination, & we can each add it to our copy
of the nominations-list.

>
> https://electowiki.org/wiki/Ranked_Choice_Including_Pairwise_Elimination
>
> Basically it's IRV with the elimination of pairwise losing candidates
> when they occur.  (It would have yielded the correct results in
> Burlington and Alaska.)  Plus correctly counting so-called "overvotes"
> instead of dismissing them.
>
> The referendum that will be on the Oregon November 2024 ballot is two
> sentences away from RCIPE.
>
> Keep in mind the Oregon November referendum was passed by the Oregon
> legislature!!
>

What's the relevance of that??  Two sentences can drastically change a
method.

>
> It was worded with assistance from election-method experts in Oregon.
> They (other than myself) do not participate here.  They wisely did not
> accept the wording that FairVote pushed two years earlier.  (I was one
> of the people who testified against FairVote's awful wording.)
>
> Adding a sentence that defines a "pairwise losing candidate" and another
> sentence that says to eliminate them when they occur will change the
> referendum to the RCIPE method.
>

So you think that those two sentences are going to be added to the state
referendum between now & November?

In any case, whatever you meant by that, differing from the referendum's
proposal by "only" two sentences doesn't confer any official legitimacy to
your method

>
> That referendum wording omits any mention of overvotes.  That makes the
> wording compatible with future software that correctly counts those
> marks.  Yes I also helped make that wording correction happen.
>
> For these reasons the Oregon referendum wording is quite significant!
> And, to repeat, it's only two sentences away from the RCIPE method.
>
> Regarding how the poll results will be calculated:
>
> Rather than choosing a specific method for calculating the results of
> this poll, I suggest sharing the data in a convenient format and letting
> different participants (and others) calculate results using their
> favorite vote-counting method.
>
> For even more calculations it should be shared on r/EndFPTP AFTER the
> voting.  If done before, ballot stuffing is sure to occur.
>
>
Ballot-stuffing isn't a problem if each ballot is received from an EM
participant, with their e-mail address on it.  ...or if the count is done
at CIVS as a private-poll.  For that, the e-mail addresses of the voters
are provided to CIVS when starting their private-poll, & ballots are sent
to each thus-registered voter.

This IS NOT an open participation poll.  It's an EM poll only.  If you want
to do a poll at a subreddit, then go for it.

> I believe the results should be a popularity ranking (or rating) that
> ranges from "most popular" to "least popular."
>

Believe what you want, but a new method that some individual "believes" in
would be a poor substitute for the longtime favorite at EM.  The idea is to
best represent the collective preference at EM...as determined by a method
long-favorite at EM.

>
> I will oppose any attempt to interpret the result as having a meaningful
> single "winning" method.
>

Suit yourself. A Schulze output-ranking (finishing-order) will be
reported..  Count the rankings as you choose, & feel free to report that
too.

>
>
>
> On 4/6/2024 4:12 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> > Updated list of nominations, in order of nomination:
> >
> > Approval
> > RP(wv)
> > Schulze
> > IRV
> > Plurality
> > MinMax(wv)
> > Black
> > Baldwin
> > Benham
> > Woodall
> > Schwartz-Woodall
> > Smith//Approval (of all ranked)
> > Smith/:Approval (of specified)
> > Margins-Sorted Approval
> > Smith//DAC
> > Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-
> > …rating, whole)
> > STAR
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240406/bb4138f6/attachment-0001.htm>