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

[Michael Ossipoff]

Typo-correction:

Here is what I meant to write in this paragraph.

Whatever method you’ve specified for the count, that’s the method *whose
winner* you’re counted as approving down to…in the base-method, which is
Approval.

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 17:32 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/dbd039bc/attachment-0001.htm>