<div><br></div><div dir="auto">I like to put my replies at the top, where they’re more easily found.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It’s late at night here now, but I’ll post a link tomorrow, as early as possible.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I’d be the last person to want to change the poll’s purpose. That purpose was my reason for starting the poll.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes, the subject of purpose should be discussed more. I really didn’t know that. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I’d specified that it be about merit-in-use, & I specifically excluded complexity & proposability. …big mistake.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">When I saw the complexity & unproposability nominations, I said, “Oh shit, I muffed that specification. What’s the point of complicating it with unproposable methods?”</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But I didn’t want to say anything, because I’d already defined the poll.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But today or yesterday (depending on where you live), two people expressed exactly my misgivings. “What are unproposable methods doing in the poll?”</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Though I’d just wanted it to be about how well the methods would work in use, it’s also true that that’s irrelevant if the method can’t even be proposed !!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That was something that I missed when I specified the poll.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So I expressed my agreement with those people. …& I asked if we can change it to:<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">“Rank in order of suitability for public-proposal, which includes proposability.”</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes it’s a change, but it’s a change in the spirit of the poll’s initially-expressed intent. …like a typo-correction, it would only change a clause that’s obviously contrary to my expressed purpose.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Two people expressed that it didn’t make sense to include unproposable methods, because it’s contrary to the expressed purpose.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As I said, they’re right. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I didn’t try to decree a change. I merely asked if we can make that change. Can we?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Most motions & issues can be dealt with by discussion for consensus…”Does anyone object to this proposal?”.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I was the 3rd person to comment that it doesn’t make any sense to include unproposable methods. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Now I ask if there’s objection, opposition or disagreement with my proposal/motion.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 02:09 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <<a href="mailto:km_elmet@t-online.de">km_elmet@t-online.de</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)">On 2024-04-13 07:54, Michael Ossipoff wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 16:05 Kristofer Munsterhjelm :<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> I would prefer that the merit question for the poll stays the same:<br>
>> "which voting methods do you prefer to which others?", i.e. ranking<br>
>> them<br>
>> in preference.<br>
> <br>
>> Then it would be up to the individual voter to consider what aspects of<br>
>> the method are most important<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> :-D. “…stays the same”? You’re trying to completely reverse the <br>
> express-purpose & entire fundamental nature of the poll that I proposed. <br>
> It was for informing voters about the EM membership’s social-ranking of <br>
> *proposals for public political elections*.<br>
<br>
(Ignore my last message; my computer had a hiccup.)<br>
<br>
What this shows is that the purpose of the poll wasn't made clear <br>
enough. See also Joseph Malkevitch' post, "Purpose of Poll 2".<br>
<br>
Could you give a link to the post where you first proposed the subject <br>
of the poll, before the voting itself started? I'd be happy to just <br>
continue with that subject, as long as we stick with it instead of <br>
changing it after the voting period has started.<br>
<br>
In other words, I'm not trying to sneakily change anything, but I would <br>
prefer it to stay consistent with what was first proposed.<br>
<br>
-km<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>