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

[Michael Ossipoff]

Fortunately the nominated list has been written in two orders, & anyone can
look at whichever they want. Of course it isn’t an issue.

So let’s proceed. It’s a poll, so let’s express preference-order now.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 14:24 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:

> 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/fc3d489d/attachment.htm>