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

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 10:16 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> so voters and would-be reformers can make their own judgements among those
>> on what is and what
>> isn't proposable and/or practical.
>>
>
> Yes, but evidently that won’t be, because several people insist on
> changing the poll from that purpose, to a plain popularity-contest without
> reference or relevance to any particular application (such as public
> political elections), & I’m tired of arguing with them, & don’t have time
> to.
>





>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-April/005617.html
>>
>> *Michael Ossipoff* email9648742 at gmail.com
>> <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/20240413/2f5ca977/attachment-0001.htm>