<html><head>
</head>
<body style="margin-bottom:45px">
<div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Though speaking of: you left out some (non-Condorcet) methods on your </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">ballot. Do you want them ranked last, or somewhere else? </span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Just like in other elections I refuse to weigh in on candidates I don't know about. And on a ranked ballot they would likely be unranked unless Hitler or Satan or Donald Trump was on the ballot, and then I would have to rank these unfamiliar candidates higher.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">> Approval plus manual runoff, MJ, RCIPE, and Double Defeat Hare</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">S
orry. No nothing from me. You guys know I'm pretty simplistic. My principles:</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">1. Equally-valued votes. One-Person-One-Vote. Equality under the law. That means Majority Rule. (If any minority gets to rule, that means their votes counted more, per vote, than then individual votes from voters in the majority that doesn't rule. That has to be considered a "Bad Thing".)</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">(1a. Process transparency. That means not giving up having Precinct Summability.)</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">2. That means if more voters mark their ballots preferring Candidate A to Candidate B than the number of voters marking their ballots to the c
ontrary, then Candidate B is not elected. If we can, at all, avoid it. That means Condorcet.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">3. Which Condorcet-consistent method to pick is whatever best finds its way to legislation. That means the method, spelled out in words, needs to be meaningful and concise and reflect principles widely accepted by the public and legislators.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">So my fav is straight-ahead Condorcet with Plurality as the contingency method. N^2 summable. Maybe it should be Condorcet-TTR (top-two-runoff) to give the Hare IRV advocates a fig leaf to cover their shame with. Also N^2 summable. I dunno.</span></div></div><div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div id="LGEmailHeader" dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">------ O
riginal message------</div><div dir="auto"><b>From: </b>Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet@t-online.de></km_elmet@t-online.de></div><div dir="auto"><b>Date: </b>Sun, May 12, 2024 17:42</div><div dir="auto"><b>To: </b>robert bristow-johnson<a href="mailto:;election-methods@lists.electorama.com">;election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>;</div><div dir="auto"><b>Cc: </b></div><div dir="auto"><b>Subject:</b>Re: [EM] POLL: New deadline: <a href="tel:2024-05-16 05">2024-05-16 05</a>:15:00 UTC</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><pre>On <a href="tel:2024-05-12 18">2024-05-12 18</a>:24, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>
> We need not resubmit our vote, right?
The last ballot you submitted is what counts, so you don't need to
resubmit unless you want to make a change to it.
Though speaking of: you left out some (non-Condorcet) methods on your
ballot. Do you want them ranked last, or somewhere else? The methods are
Approval plus manual runoff, MJ, RCIPE, and Double Defeat Hare.
> I haven't seen posted here more than a couple other ballots. How many
> have voted?
By my count, in reverse order of submission, there's:
Richard Fobes ("Poll, final ballot from Richard Fobes, the VoteFair guy")
You ("POLL: Approaching deadline: <a href="tel:2024-05-11 05">2024-05-11 05</a>:15:00 UTC")
Me ("Poll ballot")
fdpk69p6uq ("POLL: References (was: Re: Poll, preliminary ballots)")
Joshua Boehme ("My Preliminary Ballot for the Voting Systems Poll")
Chris Benham ("Poll ballot revision, Wednesday 24 April")
Mike Ossipoff ("Revised ballot, Wednesday, April 17th")
> I also am skeptical about the usefulness of the results (I presume a
> pairwise preference matrix and approval tallies) but will be interested
> anyway.
All the more reason for lurkers out there - or frequent posters for that
matter - to vote :-)
-km
</pre></div>
</body></html>