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

[Michael Ossipoff]

Kristofer—

Sorry about the language. I’m not an Internet attack-person, & I don’t want
to sound like one.

I departed from decorum, though I don’t want to, & usually don’t, when you
proposed to cancel the poll that I’d asked for (generating a collective EM
social-ranking of methods’ merit *for public political elections*), in
which we’ve been participating.

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 22:54 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 16:05 Kristofer Munsterhjelm :
>
>
>> 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
>
>
> :-D. “…stays the same”?  You’re trying to completely reverse the
> express-purpose & entire fundamental nature of the poll that I proposed. It
> was for informing voters about the EM membership’s social-ranking of
> *proposals for public political elections*.
>
> and anyone who wants to use it to guide
>> reform can just screen away the unproposable methods.
>
>
> Sure, anyone need only find all of the ones that are
> public-election-suitable & also simple enough to be proposable. … by
> searching through a ton of chaff.
>
>>
> But it would still, of course be completely meaningless & useless, because
> people have no way of knowing for what purpose or by what standard the EM
> members were rating those methods…& the members, by your system of course
> would all be evaluating & ranking based on all different standards &
> purposes.
>
> You proposal is nonsense. What it amounts to is a proposal to cancel the
> poll that people have been participating, & replace it with a new entirely
> different one, of your idiosyncratic choosing… one so vague in its question
> as to be completely meaningless, & useless for any purpose.
>
> It’s late, & this this time of night isn’t the time to start a long reply.
> I just wanted to post these brief preliminary comments. More about this
> tomorrow maybe.
>
> Definitely more either on this, or replies to other posts, + maybe some of
> the electioneering we spoke of.
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> ----
>> 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/20240413/185b109d/attachment.htm>