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

[Michael Ossipoff]

I like to put my replies at the top, where they’re more easily found.

It’s late at night here now, but I’ll post a link tomorrow, as early as
possible.

I’d be the last person to want to change the poll’s purpose. That purpose
was my reason for starting the poll.

Yes, the subject of purpose should be discussed more. I really didn’t know
that.

I’d specified that it be about merit-in-use, & I specifically excluded
complexity & proposability. …big mistake.

When I saw the complexity & unproposability nominations, I said, “Oh shit,
I muffed that specification. What’s the point of complicating it with
unproposable methods?”

But I didn’t want to say anything, because I’d already defined the poll.

But today or yesterday (depending on where you live), two people expressed
exactly my misgivings. “What are unproposable methods doing in the poll?”

Though I’d just wanted it to be about how well the methods would work in
use, it’s also true that that’s irrelevant if the method can’t even be
proposed !!

That was something that I missed when I specified the poll.

So I expressed my agreement with those people. …& I asked if we can change
it to:

“Rank in order of suitability for public-proposal, which includes
proposability.”

Yes it’s a change, but it’s a change in the spirit of the poll’s
initially-expressed intent. …like a typo-correction, it would only change a
clause that’s obviously contrary to my expressed purpose.

Two people expressed that it didn’t make sense to include unproposable
methods, because it’s contrary to the expressed purpose.

As I said, they’re right.

I didn’t try to decree a change. I merely asked if we can make that change.
Can we?

Most motions & issues can be dealt with by discussion for consensus…”Does
anyone object to this proposal?”.

I was the 3rd person to comment that it doesn’t make any sense to include
unproposable methods.

Now I ask if there’s objection, opposition or disagreement with my
proposal/motion.




On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 02:09 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de>
wrote:

> On 2024-04-13 07:54, Michael Ossipoff 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*.
>
> (Ignore my last message; my computer had a hiccup.)
>
> What this shows is that the purpose of the poll wasn't made clear
> enough. See also Joseph Malkevitch' post, "Purpose of Poll 2".
>
> Could you give a link to the post where you first proposed the subject
> of the poll, before the voting itself started? I'd be happy to just
> continue with that subject, as long as we stick with it instead of
> changing it after the voting period has started.
>
> In other words, I'm not trying to sneakily change anything, but I would
> prefer it to stay consistent with what was first proposed.
>
> -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/20240413/081f021f/attachment.htm>