[EM] Poll question and voting period

[Chris Benham]

How are we supposed to know what is "proposable" and what isn't? Or 
assuming we have some idea about that, how do we know exactly where the 
border between proposable and unproposable (which presumably varies a 
bit over time and from place to place) is?

I suggest that we limit ourselves (for the time being) to methods that 
we think at least might be proposable, being the more optimistic in this 
regard the greater the method's merit.

Our aim should be to produce an order of merit and leave the question of 
exactly how proposable this-or-that method is to would-be proposers. So 
if for example they don't think that the method at the top of our order 
is proposable, then they can just look down it until they find one that 
they think  is.

 From this perspective it would be useful to include advice on what are 
the best balloting rules and which methods work best with various ballot 
rules and restrictions.

For example I find that limiting (in either direction) the number of 
candidates the voter can to rank from the top to be unacceptable.  It is 
particularly galling if the method meets Later-no-Harm and Clone 
Independence (like Hare, aka single-winner STV, aka the Alternative Vote).

Also some methods are happier than others depending on whether or not 
above-bottom equal ranking is allowed.  Allowing equal-ranking in Hare 
either makes the method a lot more complicated or more vulnerable to 
Push-over strategy.

But most Condorcet methods are happy to allow equal-ranking and can use 
even limited-slot ratings ballots (such as ABCD grading ballots).

Some indication of merit gaps, particularly in comparison with methods 
currently in use and methods that already have some significant profile 
and/or traction, would also be ideal.

Chris B.



>
> *Michael Ossipoff*email9648742 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20question%20and%20voting%20period&In-Reply-To=%3CCAOKDY5B2mGiZF2EMqOguX-9RvNpALNx4jmesVAfvUPVcv-dHkQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
> /Thu Apr 18 18:01:47 PDT 2024/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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  <http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com>>
> 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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240419/7be4daa8/attachment-0001.htm>