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

Tue Apr 9 20:38:52 PDT 2024

Thanks for your honesty. :-)

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 18:13 Closed Limelike Curves <
closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/c6b0167c/attachment.htm>