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

[Michael Ossipoff]

It isn’t necessary to write the list in random order. As Chris said, it
should be left  in the nominated-order. We won’t be unfairly influenced by
the order.

You’d have to ask the people who nominated Condorcet—IRV, Woodall, etc
whether or not they want to combine them as a single “candidate”.

In general, no unnecessary changes !!!

There’s a question that a few people have brought up, & which should be
dealt with:

The nominators nearly all didn’t say what special merits are claimed for
the nominees.

We’ve got 24 nominees, many we haven’t heard of, but certainly don’t know
the individual special merits of.

When I voted, about 9 hours ago I just equal-ranked all the unknowns
together as a bloc. One shouldn’t vote on what one doesn’t know.

People who know important differences between any particular nominees can &
will, of course, express their merit-differences when ranking them.

I don’t perceive a problem there, but, as Chris suggested, let’s allow
explanation, merits-description, advocacy & questions during the voting
period.

I suggested a 1-month voting period. Too long? Probably, except maybe now a
good thing if people want nominators to explain & merit-justify their
nominees. Because of a possible wish for that, my inclination is to leave
the voting duration at a month.

But, just as I’m making that suggestion, anyone can argue otherwise & call
for a vote.

For simplicity, & to accommodate all who want more information about the
nominees, I suggest leaving the voting period at 1 month.

If anyone wants to suggest a different (probably shorter) voting period,
then please say so.

Most issues can be resolved by consensus discussion among a few—those
online at the time, of course subject to the agreement of those who later
hear about it. When there’s disagreement, someone could call for a vote.

Meanwhile, not to be stopped by discussion of these issues, this is the
voting period as initially suggested, & not disagreed with by anyone yet.

Some might want a separate explanation, advocacy & questions period, to
start now., instead of the voting period.

But I like the simplicity & flexibility of allowing voting, advocacy,
questions, answers during the coming 1-month period. Less structure means
less collective structure-organizing needed, & that can make things much
easier.

No one disagreed before with the suggestion for a voting period starting
today. Then leave it so? That’s my inclination, for simplicity.

Alternative proposals? If not then let’s now indicate our preference order
for the nominees.




On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 02:45 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de>
wrote:

> On 2024-04-10 04:58, Forest Simmons wrote:
> > I would like to nominate ...
> >
> > Max Strength Transitive Beatpath:
> >
> > Elect the head of the strongest transitive  beatpath.
>
> Okay. (Sorry for not getting to this earlier!)
>
> The final list is, in random order:
>
> Smith//Score
> Approval with manual runoff
> Smith//Approval (explicit - specified approval cutoff)
> Schwartz-Woodall
> Copeland//Borda (also called Ranked Robin)
> MinMax(wv)
> Double Defeat, Hare
> Plurality
> Majority Judgement (as a category; includes usual judgement etc.)
> IRV
> Max Strength Transitive Beatpath
> STAR
> Woodall
> Schulze
> Baldwin
> Black
> Approval
> Benham
> Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-rated whole)
> Gross Loser Elimination
> Smith//DAC
> RCIPE
> RP(wv)
> Smith//Approval (implicit - of all ranked)
> Margins-Sorted Approval
>
> In addition, the shorthand category
>         "Condorcet-IRV"
> corresponds to including (or equal-ranking) all of Benham, Woodall, and
> Schwartz-Woodall.
>
> -km
> ----
> 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/20240411/b6c372bd/attachment.htm>