<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">First of all, I don’t know how meaningful it is to speak of someone “running” the poll. The nominations are there, regardless of who is nominally "running" the poll.</div><div><br></div><div>As for the poll-counting method, as I mentioned, Schulze is the longtime established favorite, & is implemented in probably numerous Internet-calculators, & its count-algorithm software is probably already possessed by a number of people here. ...& it's implemented at CIVS, where we could do a private poll by Schulze...conveniently being able to count it by 4 other methods to, just by selecting them.</div><div><br></div><div>...& automatically get an output-ranking, a finishing-order by Schulze.</div><div><br></div><div>When I prop;osed the poll, I suggested Schulze, & there was good reason& support for that suggestion. As I said a new-invention-method would be inappropriate & unrepresentative of EM.</div><div><br></div><div>Obviously anyone can count the rankings as they choose. But I suggest that Schulze's output-ranking is the one that can reasonably be said to be most representative off EfM, due to Schulze's longtime favoriteness here.</div><div><br></div><div>Admittedly it's inconvenient that I've blocked 4 people, though I told good reasons for doing so in each instance. But, I want to know what the nominations & ballots are, & maybe they won't always be re-posted. So, to hear what's nominated & voted in the poll, I'm *probvisionally* unblocking 3 of the 4 people that I've blocked. But not Toby, because he's still perpetrating his conduct.for which he was blocked.</div><div><br></div><div>Likewise, the nomination & voting periods that I suggested seem reasonable, &* it would be irregular & counterproductive to argue for changing them.<br></div><div><br></div><div dir="auto">Any changes argued-for, for the poll, should be clearly justified, because changes without a reason are unhelpful in any group-project.</div><div><br></div><div>Because I've blocked 4 people, & haven't yet unblocked the 3 that I intend to unblock, I hope that someone whom I haven't blocked will post updates of the nominations-list. That's a reasonable request. Obviously my updates won't be reliably-complete until I've unblocked those 3 persons.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">
Now, to answer this message:
</div></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 17:00 Richard, the VoteFair guy <<a href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org" target="_blank">electionmethods@votefair.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 4/6/2024 4:12 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:<br>
> Updated list of nominations, in order of nomination:<br>
> ...<br>
<br>
For this poll I nominate RCIPE, Ranked Choice Including Pairwise <br>
Elimination (pronounced as "recipe").<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Alright, we all received that nomination, & we can each add it to our copy of the nominations-list. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<a href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Ranked_Choice_Including_Pairwise_Elimination" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electowiki.org/wiki/Ranked_Choice_Including_Pairwise_Elimination</a><br>
<br>
Basically it's IRV with the elimination of pairwise losing candidates <br>
when they occur. (It would have yielded the correct results in <br>
Burlington and Alaska.) Plus correctly counting so-called "overvotes" <br>
instead of dismissing them.<br>
<br>
The referendum that will be on the Oregon November 2024 ballot is two <br>
sentences away from RCIPE.<br>
<br>
Keep in mind the Oregon November referendum was passed by the Oregon <br>
legislature!!<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What's the relevance of that?? Two sentences can drastically change a method.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
It was worded with assistance from election-method experts in Oregon. <br>
They (other than myself) do not participate here. They wisely did not <br>
accept the wording that FairVote pushed two years earlier. (I was one <br>
of the people who testified against FairVote's awful wording.)<br><br>
Adding a sentence that defines a "pairwise losing candidate" and another <br>
sentence that says to eliminate them when they occur will change the <br>
referendum to the RCIPE method.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So you think that those two sentences are going to be added to the state referendum between now & November?</div><div><br></div><div>In any case, whatever you meant by that, differing from the referendum's proposal by "only" two sentences doesn't confer any official legitimacy to your method</div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
That referendum wording omits any mention of overvotes. That makes the <br>
wording compatible with future software that correctly counts those <br>
marks. Yes I also helped make that wording correction happen.<br>
<br>
For these reasons the Oregon referendum wording is quite significant! <br>
And, to repeat, it's only two sentences away from the RCIPE method.<br>
<br>
Regarding how the poll results will be calculated:<br>
<br>
Rather than choosing a specific method for calculating the results of <br>
this poll, I suggest sharing the data in a convenient format and letting <br>
different participants (and others) calculate results using their <br>
favorite vote-counting method.<br>
<br>
For even more calculations it should be shared on r/EndFPTP AFTER the <br>
voting. If done before, ballot stuffing is sure to occur.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ballot-stuffing isn't a problem if each ballot is received from an EM participant, with their e-mail address on it. ...or if the count is done at CIVS as a private-poll. For that, the e-mail addresses of the voters are provided to CIVS when starting their private-poll, & ballots are sent to each thus-registered voter.</div><div><br></div><div>This IS NOT an open participation poll. It's an EM poll only. If you want to do a poll at a subreddit, then go for it.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I believe the results should be a popularity ranking (or rating) that <br>
ranges from "most popular" to "least popular."<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Believe what you want, but a new method that some individual "believes" in would be a poor substitute for the longtime favorite at EM. The idea is to best represent the collective preference at EM...as determined by a method long-favorite at EM.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I will oppose any attempt to interpret the result as having a meaningful <br>
single "winning" method.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Suit yourself. A Schulze output-ranking (finishing-order) will be reported.. Count the rankings as you choose, & feel free to report that too.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/6/2024 4:12 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:<br>
> Updated list of nominations, in order of nomination:<br>
> <br>
> Approval<br>
> RP(wv)<br>
> Schulze<br>
> IRV<br>
> Plurality<br>
> MinMax(wv)<br>
> Black<br>
> Baldwin<br>
> Benham<br>
> Woodall<br>
> Schwartz-Woodall<br>
> Smith//Approval (of all ranked)<br>
> Smith/:Approval (of specified)<br>
> Margins-Sorted Approval<br>
> Smith//DAC<br>
> Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-<br>
> …rating, whole)<br>
> STAR<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ----<br>
> Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div>