[EM] Express any wish for democratic choice of poll-parameters. Do-able if desired.

[Michael Ossipoff]

I should add, to my hypothetical  Voter’s Choice ballot on those 3
alternatives, I additionally cast an Approval-ballot, in case some people
specify Approval:

Approval set:

{Alternative #1, Alternative #3}

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 16:58 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> When proposing this poll, I assumed that people would prefer the simplest
> & least elaborate poll-proposal.
>
> I wasn’t trying to be autocratic or favor my favorites when I suggested
> Schulze & Approval as the polling-methods. Schulze isn’t my favorite
> Condorcet anyway, but it’s popular.
>
> So I suggested what seem to have been the 2 favorite methods at EM.
>
> But it could be that I was wrong about that, because maybe the favorite
> has changed.
>
> Or maybe, contrary to what I assumed, SIMPLE & STREAMLINED aren’t as
> desired as much as DEMOCRATIC or THOROUGH or ALL-INCLUSIVE.
>
> A few people have suggested different methods for the polling.
> Democratically choosing that poll-parameter is easily achievable if people
> so desire.
>
> All that’s necessary is for a few people to express that wishes in this
> thread. If a few do, then there’d be justification for proposing a vote on
> the polling-method parameter. I hesitate to propose that vote now, with
> only two people having hinted about it—otherwise I’d propose such a vote
> now.
>
> So, if anyone would like for us all to democratically choose the poll’s
> voting method, then please either make that proposal, or express that wish,
> because it’s easily do-able.
>
> In the meantime, let me comment on 2 possibilities for that purpose,
>
> …& a possible (but not yet proposed) 3-alternative vote among those 2
> possibilities & the default stays quo (Schulze & Approval, with Schulze
> predominant).
>
> The Schulze & Approval status-quo, I’ll call “alternative #1.
>
> Alternative # 2:
>
> I don’t think you’ll like this one, because it takes twice as long,
> requiring 2 polls—the 1st one to choose the method for the 2nd one.
>
> Of course that vote could be conducted immediately… like right now if
> desired.
>
> To save some time, the existing nominations, + any additional ones, could
> be regarded as being for the 1st of those 2 votes.
>
> What method for the 1st vote? I suggest Schulze, due to its long
> popularity here.
>
> There isn’t much more to say about Alternative #2.
>
> Alternative #3:
>
> A long time ago I conducted an EM poll by a method that I call “Voter’s
> Choice”. It doesn’t require any agreement or choice on a method with which
> to start:
>
> Voter’s Choice:
>
> Each voter indicates 1) A method for the poll;
>
> & 2) a ballot for at least that method, & optionally also ballots for 1 or
> more other methods that others might specify, if those other methods
> require different balloting.
>
> e.g. Right now there’s interest in ranked-methods, Approval, &
> Smiih//Score (which requires both a ranking & a Score ballot). So then, if
> you yourself have specified a ranked-method, you post a ranking. …with the
> option of additionally adding an Approval-ballot & maybe a Score-ballot
> (for Smith//Score).  But you needn’t add those others unless you want to.
>
> What if the person specifying Smith//Score is the only person who posts a
> Score-ballot?
>
> No problem!! …as will be seen below, in the description of how that ballot
> + method-specification is counted:
>
> Whatever method you’ve specified for the count, that’s the method that
> you’re counted as approving down to. …in the base-method, which is Approval.
>
> Of course, optimally, on should approve (only) down to the CW.
>
> So, the optimality & effectiveness of automated Approval-vote depends on
> the Condorcet-efficiency of your specified-method.
>
> Optionally, you can, instead of specifying a count-method, indicate
> “Manual”, indicating that, instead of the automated Approval-vote, you want
> to have-counted for you the Approval-vote that you have posted.
>
> So, if only one person posts a Score-ballot, then, automatically, his
> top-scored candidate wins the Smith//Score count, & so he is counted as
> approving down to his top-scored candidate.
>
> If that sounds elaborate, it’s all reasonable & logical, with nothing
> arbitrary or unexpected.
>
> It eliminates Alternative #2’s need two elections, & it doesn’t require
> any agreement on a method for counting the poll.
>
> That’s Alternative #3.
>
> If anyone proposes, or indicates preference for, a 3-way vote,
> immediately, among alternatives #1, #2, & #3, then let’s take a quick vote
> on that immediately.
>
> …by what method?
>
> Either Schulze ( because of its long popularity) or by Voter’s Choice.
>
> Whichever one gets more thumbs up…either figuratively or 👍
>
> I’m not actually proposing that 3-way vote, but I’m inviting anyone who
> wants a democratic choice of polling-method to say so, & we can then
> proceed with it.
>
> I’m agreeable to that if it’s desired. If no one wants to go that route,
> that’s fine too, & that means that you want to just stay with Schulze &
> Approval, as initially proposed. The choice is yours—as of course it should
> be.
>
> In case people prefer a vote among those 3 alternatives, here’s my ballot
> for that vote:
>
> If it’s to be counted by Schulze:
>
> 1. Alternative #1
> 2. Alternative #3
> 3. Alternative #2
>
> (Of course, with 3 candidates, Schulze = MinMax(wv). )
>
> If it’s to be counted by Voter’s Choice:
>
> Specified method: MinMax(wv)
>
> Ranking:
>
> 1. Alternative #1
> 2. Alternative #3
> 3. Alternative #2
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240408/dedda456/attachment.htm>