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

[Joshua Boehme]

Is there actually a problem though? Here's how you described it on 4/6 and how I've been building my rankings:
  
> Good point. I was meaning to clarify that. This poll is intended to be
> about merit-in-use. ...disregarding winnability & proposability.  ...but
> taking into account strategy-problems,, expense of implementation, expense
> & difficulty of administration, complexity & consequent insecurity of
> count, & consequent count-fraud vulnerability.   So, it's about
> merit-in-use, in all its aspects.
> 
> Of course we don't rate those various merit-in-use considerations in the
> same order.


That explicitly includes complexity and multiple aspects highly correlated with proposability.





On 4/13/24 05:42, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> 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.