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

[Michael Garman]

I second this proposal.

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 1:05 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de>
wrote:

> On 2024-04-12 22:37, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> > Right!! That’s something I wanted to say. I’m removing Schulze from the
> > upper part of my ranking for that reason, & replacing it with
> > Smith//Approval(implicit).
> >
> > How about we say to rank in order of overall merit for public
> > proposal…which includes proposability?
> >
> > Then the unproposably complex methods could be left unranked or ranked
> > near bottom.
> >
> > Or take it a step further & trim the candidate-set to only include
> > proposable methods? But might it be quicker to just let that be a voting
> > judgment, instead of having to do that evaluation as a separate
> > preliminary collective evaluation, which would delay the voting?
>
> I would prefer that the merit question for the poll stays the same:
> "which voting methods do you prefer to which others?", i.e. ranking them
> in preference.
>
> Then it would be up to the individual voter to consider what aspects of
> the method are most important; and anyone who wants to use it to guide
> reform can just screen away the unproposable methods.
>
> After all, we have to do that anyway, because it's pretty much
> impossible to collapse disparate concerns into a single order without
> making some assumptions about which concerns are most important. Would I
> recommend Benham ahead of Schulze? Well, that depends on whether there's
> tons of strategy in the place in question and whether they (and I) can
> accept the nonmonotonicity.
>
> In the absence of any such situational information, any order will be
> imperfect. In any case, if the poll's output ranking ends up being like
>
> Extrinsic Borda-Weighted Landau Intersection > Iterative Refinement
> Keener + Sinkhorn (mean) > Schulze > RP > Approval > IRV,
>
> then it's a simple matter for reformers to just discard everything above
> Schulze (or RP) for a public proposal. In practice, I doubt the exotic
> methods will rank that high anyway.
>
> -km
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240413/cb580d43/attachment.htm>