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

[Chris Benham]

I am happy with a 2-day extension.

I think the poll could have been conceived a bit better in the first 
place, taking account of ballot restrictions in the US that are fixed or 
difficult to change.  We could have had parallel polls for different 
ballot types, including those we most like and those we might have to 
put up with.

Chris

On 11/05/2024 12:19 pm, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em  for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240511/5e4a3a5f/attachment.htm>