<div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 05:09 Chris Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au">cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><u></u>
<div>
<p>Kristofer,<br>
<br>
I preferred the order in which they were nominated.<br>
</p></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">That’s easier for me, because there isn’t a change of order from the lists that we’ve had.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div><p><br>
I don't see any problem with continuing to "electioneer" while
voting is open, or really with allowing people to change their
vote.</p></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Agreed, to both. If we couldn’t change our vote, later voters would have an advantage.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">No reason to not allow it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I changed my Approval vote after a few minutes.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">When no on said anything about the special merits of their nominee, I assumed that we weren’t going to have that. So I just equal-ranked all of the ones that I didn’t know anything about, below those I like, & above the ones I didn’t like.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I just assumed that we’d preference-rank what we know, & middle-equal-rank the rest.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But is it widely felt that we want a merit explanation & questions time? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If so maybe it would be conveniently-flexible for the next month to be for advocacy, explanation, & questions. Or divide the month in half, with the 2nd half for voting.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I don’t have an opinion on those matters. Either answer would be fine.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The month overall remaining duration was just what sounded about right as an initial default, easily changed by consensus discussion or anyone calling for a vote.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div><p dir="auto"><br>
<br>
The names of the people who nominated each method might be
interesting so that we know to whom we should address questions<br>
(at least on the method's definitions).</p></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Sure, or the questions could just be posted, & the nominations would notice them.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div><p dir="auto"></p></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div><p dir="auto"><br>
<br>
Quite a few of these methods are very similar to at least one
other. BTW, what is "usual judgement"??</p></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Usual-Judgment is a relative of MJ, but with a different tiebreaker. There are several of those. Kristofer nominated the whole family.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If the several people in the discussion agree on a parameter, & no one disagrees when they hear about it. That might be the easiest way to decide things, with a vote not usually needed, especially because these aren’t controversial decisions.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div><p dir="auto"><br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
<br>
</p><blockquote type="cite">
<h1 style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Poll
on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming
enactment-elections</h1>
<b style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Kristofer
Munsterhjelm</b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;float:none;display:inline!important;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span><a href="mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3C19e103d5-f2e0-ce23-6f7a-e38d35bef9fb%40t-online.de%3E" title="[EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections" style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal" target="_blank">km_elmet
at t-online.de</a><br style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">
<i style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Thu
Apr 11 02:45:13 PDT 2024</i><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;float:none;display:inline!important;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0)"></span>
<p style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</p>
<hr style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;font-family:monospace;color:rgb(0,0,0)">On 2024-04-10 04:58, Forest Simmons wrote:
><i style="font-family:monospace"> I would like to nominate ...
</i>><i style="font-family:monospace">
</i>><i style="font-family:monospace"> Max Strength Transitive Beatpath:
</i>><i style="font-family:monospace">
</i>><i style="font-family:monospace"> Elect the head of the strongest transitive beatpath.
</i>
Okay. (Sorry for not getting to this earlier!)
The final list is, in random order:
Smith//Score
Approval with manual runoff
Smith//Approval (explicit - specified approval cutoff)
Schwartz-Woodall
Copeland//Borda (also called Ranked Robin)
MinMax(wv)
Double Defeat, Hare
Plurality
Majority Judgement (as a category; includes usual judgement etc.)
IRV
Max Strength Transitive Beatpath
STAR
Woodall
Schulze
Baldwin
Black
Approval
Benham
Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-rated whole)
Gross Loser Elimination
Smith//DAC
RCIPE
RP(wv)
Smith//Approval (implicit - of all ranked)
Margins-Sorted Approval
In addition, the shorthand category
"Condorcet-IRV"
corresponds to including (or equal-ranking) all of Benham, Woodall, and
Schwartz-Woodall.
-km</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>