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

[Closed Limelike Curves]

I nominate dictatorship by KM.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 4:57 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 17:02 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-06 18:55, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>> > Well I nominate Kristofer to administer the poll.  Michael, if you are
>> > plonking people or vise versa, it might not be as good for you to
>> > administer the poll.
>> >
>>
>> Since Michael Garman also said MO shouldn't be running this poll, if
>> there are no other suggestions, I'd like to administer it.
>
>
> Not sure what KM means by “administer”. Make rules & decisions by decree?
> Or maybe just be chairperson or facilitator.
>
> This is a poll, not an organization. It neither has nor needs a charter or
> officers, including chairperson.
>
> I proposed a poll because there wasn’t one. I suggested a voting method &
> nomination & voting periods because those are needed for a poll. But those
> were suggestions, & were obviously open to discussion.
>
> I didn’t perceive myself as “administering” the poll, because it didn’t
> occur to me that any participant should be special, or have unique right to
> make suggestions or ask questions.
>
> KM evidently believes otherwise.
>
> “unless someone has another suggestion”?
>
> Yes, I do: There’s no need or reason for one participant to have unique
> authority or privilege to make decisions or rules, or even have a
> chairperson’s procedural authority. …or the unique privilege of making
> suggestions/motions or asking questions, or any amount or degree of such
> privilege.
>
> I don’t care who posts nomination-updates.
>
> With the understanding that it’s unclear what “run” & “administer” mean, &
> that I don’t believe in any degree of unequal authority or privilege in
> poll-decisions (which should always be made collectively, with identical
> equal voice for everyone):
>
> KM said that he’d like to “administer” the poll because two people said
> that I shouldn’t.
>
> What they said was that I shouldn’t administer *if I had people blocked*.
> Not the same thing. KM changed the meaning of what they said, by
> conveniently leaving out a clause in both utterances.
>
> Yes I’d blocked people, as had KM. Because of the poll, I unblocked, as
> did KM. I’d been posting nomination-lists, & then KM posted one.
>
> BTW, I was reading the poll-related posts of blocked members, in the
> spam-folder. My latest list, which I hadn’t posted yet, had the same 23
> nominations as KM’s posted list.
>
> Incidentally, the two people KM quoted saying that I shouldn’t “run” or
> “administer” the poll were two people I’d recently blocked for continuing
> repetition of some quite nonsensical claims including the most contorted &
> silly defenses of FairVote’s lying, & an attempt to use the argument,
> familiar from IRVists, that one-person-one-vote means Plurality-Voting or
> IRV (With Robert’s convenient unexplained exception for Condorcet).
>
> Pretty much no one here agrees with those claims. I blocked those two
> because, given what they’d just said, I was
> no longer interested in what they say, & had a right to not display their
> posts or emails.
>
> Given those circumstances & background I’d hardly recognize those two as
> impartial evaluators of me.
>
> There remains the matter of the poll’s voting-method. There’s obviously a
> very strong collective preference for rank-methods, & a near-unanimous
> preference for Condorcet-complying methods. …suggesting a choice among only
> such methods.
>
> Of course those methods only rarely choose differently.
>
> In fact, is it even necessary to specify a rank-count for the poll, which
> anyone can count & report as they choose, according to what they consider
> best tells how people feel?
>
> But I initially wanted to report EM’s method-finishing-order, & felt that
> it would have stronger meaning if it as counted as EM preferred.
>
> I suggested Schulze as the primary method because of its great long
> popularity, & because of the abundance of count-software, including at
> CIVS, which I suggested as the most natural count process.
>
> There were a suggestions for other methods, & so, given that collective
> choice should take precedence over one person’s initial suggestion, I
> brought up the matter of voting on the method.
>
> Only 3 possibilities, unless someone can suggest another:
>
> 1. The initial Schulze suggestion
> 2. Collectively-choose a voting-method
> 3. Voter’s choice
>
> I invited people to express any wish for a vote on the method, bro only if
> there’s desire to do so instead of just using the popular Schulze.
>
> Evidently there’s no sentiment that we should find a substitute for
> Schulze, as the nominal EM choice (to whatever extent one is even
> needed)That’s good, because it simplifies things.
>
> BTW, of course, because not all nominees are Condorcet, & because even
> Condorcet methods *can* choose differently, then, with so very many
> preferred methods, many methods might have to be counted in Voter’s choice.
> Maybe Voter’s Choice isn’t extremely practical for such a big field.
>
> Then, if it were necessary to choose a new method, it would be necessary
> to first choose how to vote in *that* choice.
>
> If that were necessary, I’d suggest Voter’s Choice, among *a few* nominees.
>
> But I agree with you that a new choice isn’t necessary.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I've unblocked the two people I got plonked. But someone should probably
>> tell MO about the change because I think he's got me plonked, since the
>> lists I've seen since I unblocked him don't contain my suggestions.
>>
>> I would also suggest merging the Condorcet-IRV hybrids into a Smith-IRV
>> category. While Condorcet methods can handle lots of alternatives, it's
>> easier to fill out a poll with fewer alternatives. But if you'd prefer
>> having the full unabridged list, that's okay by me too. Alternatively we
>> could remove just Schwartz-Woodall.
>>
>> If anybody else has merge ideas, just lemme know. The most obvious
>> candidates would be combining Copeland//Borda and Black.
>>
>> And of course, if MO also wants to count the votes too (based on what
>> posts he get), I'm not going to stop him - the mailing list posts are
>> public, after all.
>>
>> The current methods are:
>>
>> Approval
>> RP(wv)
>> Schulze
>> IRV
>> Plurality
>> Majority Judgement (as a category; includes usual judgement etc.)
>> Approval with manual runoff
>> Copeland//Borda (also called Ranked Robin)
>> MinMax(wv)
>> Black
>> STAR
>> Smith//Score
>> Baldwin
>> Benham
>> Woodall
>> Schwartz-Woodall
>> Smith//Approval (implicit - of all ranked)
>> Smith//Approval (explicit - specified approval cutoff)
>> Margins-Sorted Approval
>> Smith//DAC
>> Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-rated whole)
>>
>>
>> The nomination deadline is 2024-04-11 05:14:59 UTC, inclusive. (Not like
>> we're going to need to be accurate down to the second, but there we go.)
>>
>> -km
>> ----
>> 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/20240409/483f4637/attachment-0001.htm>