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

[Chris Benham]

> It is, as I said, proposed for the important practical purpose of letting
> the voters in the upcoming enactment-elections know how we feel about the
> relative merits of some voting-systems, including the one that they’re
> about to vote on the enactment of.

"Some voting systems" is a bit vague, and Mike here is coy on which is 
the one they're about to vote on.

I gather it is STAR, but that isn't one of the methods he nominated.

I will be doing quite a bit of equal-ranking, and I think it would be 
good if the poll had more than one
in first place, and an indication that some others are acceptable and a 
big improvement on FPP,
so voters and would-be reformers can make their own judgements among 
those on what is and what
isn't proposable and/or practical.

Chris



http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-April/005617.html
> *Michael Ossipoff*email9648742 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAOKDY5BkSGJkX%3D7zWXBr2t1SBNVMNj96wm-T8ubvr_wGM5h51w%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
> /Wed Apr 3 22:13:28 PDT 2024/
> EM used to do a lot of polls, but now never does. So I wouldn’t propose
> one, if it weren’t for the fact that, this year, the voters of at least two
> states are going to vote on whether to enact a certain voting-system.
>
> It seems to me—tell me if I’m wrong—that those people have a right to know
> how people familiar with voting-systems feel about the relative merits of
> some voting-systems.
>
> So, though I claim that polls are valuable for demonstrating the experience
> of using the voting systems, & how they work, & what they’ll do—& are
> therefore useful & worthwhile for their own sake—this poll that I now
> propose isn’t a poll for its own sake.
>
> It is, as I said, proposed for the important practical purpose of letting
> the voters in the upcoming enactment-elections know how we feel about the
> relative merits of some voting-systems, including the one that they’re
> about to vote on the enactment of.
>
> The voting-method for the poll:
>
> It seems to me that Schulze is the most popular ranked voting-system, among
> the people at EM.
>
> …& it seems to me that the last time we voted on EM’s collective favorite
> voting-system, Approval won.
>
> Those seem the top-two, in EM popularity.
>
> I prefer RP(wv) to Beatpath, mostly for its simple, intuitively natural &
> obvious rule, but also for its LIIAC compliance, & the fact that its winner
> usually pairbeats Schulze’s winner.
>
> But I guess Schulze is more popular due to its more efficient algorithm.
>
> Anyway so I suggest that the poll I propose have a Schulze balloting &
> count, & an Approval balloting & count.
>
> Voting would consist of posting a ranking & an approval-set, in one post.
>
> Candidate voting-systems:
>
> My purpose isn’t an all-inclusive poll among all proposed voting-systems.
> …just a very few ones that are the most popular here at EM, solely to have
> a little comparison to the main voting system being publicly voted on this
> year.
>
> So it should just be among a few voting-systems. Additionally, no reason to
> make the alternatives-lineup too time-consumingly large by including
> methods unlikely to win anyway.
>
> I’ll suggest a few obvious inclusions. But, of course every poll here
> should have the possibility of nomination of whatever alternative anyone
> wants to nominate.
>
> I’ll list my nominations in this post, & I claim that those few are all the
> alternatives needed for the poll.  …& anyone can nominate anything during a
> 1-week nomination-period.
>
> I suggest the following voting-systems as candidates in the poll, the
> alternatives among which to vote:
>
> Approval
> RP(wv)
> Schulze
> IRV
>
> (Schulze & RP are often said to be the ranked-methods most popular among
> single-winner reform  community, & that seems true at EM.)
>
>
> Is there any need for more alternatives than that?
>
> I suggest a nomination period of exactly one week, starting at the time
> recorded as the posting-time-&-date of this post.
>
> After which a voting-period of exactly one month would start…at the exact
> time as the end of the nomination-period.
>
> If there are no nominations (I suggest that none are needed) during the
> nomination-period—& if, during the nomination-period, no one posts the
> words “I second the suggestion of a poll”—then of course there’d not be a
> poll.
>
> Again, I realize that polls are no longer popular here, but this is a
> special situation, bringing a need for voters in the upcoming public
> enactment-election to have a chance to hear how people at EM feel about
> relative merit among voting-systems. So let’s make an exception to the
> absence of polls here, for voters in the next election.



> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240413/8557bd5e/attachment-0001.htm>