[EM] Poll question and voting period

[Michael Ossipoff]

Yes,  that’s how I initially proposed it; but later, 2 people objected to
the unproposable complexity of many of the nominees.

By that time, I’d noticed the logical fault in my initial wording that
explicitly excluded proposability from consideration. So, when those 2
people objected about unproposability, that told me that it was permissible
&. constructive for me to ask for the removal of the clause saying to
disregard proposability.

Of course that clause made no sense. It was a logical-typo.

…because, if a method is unproposable, then its merit-in-use is quite
irrelevant,  since it can’t get in use.

So the change that I asked for at that time, encouraged by those 2 people’s
objections about unproposability, wasn’t to change the spirit or intent of
the proposal..but only to correct a logically nonsensical error in the
initial wording.

So, my request is to simplify the wording by removing that illogical
exclusion of proposability as a consideration, & simply ask that methods be
ranked according to their suitability for public proposal.  … which
automatically includes both proposability *and* merit-in-use.

…because obviously the merit-in-use of an unproposable method is irrelevant.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 14:49 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de>
wrote:

> Alright, now that I've got a little bit more time, here's the post that
> I was intending to write.
>
> In the original EM post, Michael Ossipoff suggested there be a week-long
> nomination period and then a month-long voting period. Since nobody
> proposed otherwise, that's what we went with.
>
> Since the voting period started at 2024-04-11 05:15:00 UTC that means
> that the voting deadline is
>
> 2024-05-11 05:15:00 UTC, inclusive.
>
> As for the question, MO said this:
>
> > 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.
>
> So, as I understand it, the question would be:
>
> "What methods do you consider to have the greatest merit in use for
> public elections?
>
> For the ranked ballot, rank the methods in order of merit.
>
> Every aspect relevant to the methods' suitability for public use is
> relevant: including vulnerability to strategy, expense of implementation
> and administration, count complexity, and vulnerability to fraud.
>
> However, the answer should not take into account whether the method is
> currently being proposed by an advocacy group, nor how much momentum a
> particular group or reform movement, if it exists, enjoys at the moment."
>
> MO: Does that sound about right?
>
> (I didn't add a description of how to do Approval because lots of
> different approaches and heuristics exist.)
>
> -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/20240418/91b1adc4/attachment.htm>