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

[Michael Garman]

I prefer random order.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:22 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
> ----
> 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/20240411/07da81b4/attachment.htm>