[EM] POLL: Approaching deadline: 2024-05-11 05:15:00 UTC

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 18:13 Closed Limelike Curves <
closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com> wrote:

> We could just postpone it.
>

I suggested a two day extension of the voting-deadline.

I take your suggestion as a second to that motion.


> But  in any case I don't know what this poll is supposed to accomplish.
> 1. The number of methods is so large that everyone's ballot is missing
> half the methods…
>

That’s expected. In many-candidate elections, people usually won’t rank all
of the alternatives. No problem. The rankings express their preferences
among their most preferred.

It isn’t clear why you perceive that as a problem.

I presume on an oversight, because there's just no way people have that
> strong of an opinion on
>

Meaning unclear. I didn’t expect so many nominees. So what. Approval & the
Condorcet complying methods don’t have a problem with lots of candidates.

2. The pairwise matrix is going to end up so degenerate as to be useless.
>

Unsupported statement, unclear in meaning.


It'll be full of cycles and ties.
>

Top-cycles for 1st place are quite rare.

CIVS has done lots of pills with many candidate’s, with no problems.

With many candidates, & successive counts among the remaining no winners
(to determine the finishing-order, the social-ranking), there could be a
spontaneous sincere cycle somewhere in the finishing-order determination.

Schulze & RP(WC) are regarded by many as the best for sincere cycles.
…regarded as meeting the most criteria with a consensus of importance.

Closed, when arriving at a forum, the standard advice is to listen & ask
questions for a while before asserting. You’re doing far too much
asserting, when you should instead be listening & asking.

>
The number of voters is so small, and the number of outcomes is
> sufficiently large, that the pairwise matrix is effectively meaningless and
> dominated by noise.
>

Nonsense. It aggregates the expressed pairwise-preferences, to find the CW,
the candidate who’d beat everything else in 2-way votes.

In the event of no CW, that absence will be shown. …& Schulz & RP(wv) will
choose in the best accordance with established criteria.

>

>
> The issue with this poll is it approached the topic as a question of
> voting when it isn't.
>

:-) I don’t know what *your* question is. If it’s different, feel free to
ask it.

Good voting methods aren't always good statistical methods.
>
> If I had cardinal ballots, I could fit a multilevel hierarchical model and
> possibly get something meaningful out of it. But as is the data here is
> effectively useless.
>

As I said, you assert far too much. Whoa, we’re getting ahead of ourselves,
Cowboy.

You spoke of “noise”. You’re making a nuisance noise of yourself.

>
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:10 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
> km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-10 23:49, Toby Pereira wrote:
>> > It probably would have been better to have more warning for the
>> > impending end of the poll. I'm not going to have time to give this a
>> > proper go now. I know it has been referred to previously, but with so
>> > many posts on the topic, it's not that easy to find.
>>
>> That's entirely understandable. Sorry about that; in retrospect I should
>> have posted that earlier.
>>
>> -km
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
> ----
> 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/20240510/a9bc2a2a/attachment-0001.htm>