The simulation could provide important information about the voting-systems—in matters that are currently mostly speculative…with most of the methods currently little-known at best. So then, should the voting-deadline be postponed till after the simulation-results for at least a few of the more popular methods? Here are 3 possibilities: 1. Status-quo, original deadline-date 2. Deadline 48 hours after results for at least a few most popular methods 3. Deadline immediately after both the initial deadline & #2 have occurred Wouldn’t no expression of opinion support #1? If there’s expression in favor of #2 or #3, & no opposition expressed, wouldn’t that suggest support for, & no opposition to, that alternative? …& if opposition or disagreement is expressed, wouldn’t ensuing discussion likely lead to a consensus? …or, if it doesn’t, might it likely show one alternative to be acceptable to the most people?

I oppose changing the deadline. On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 9:58 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > The simulation could provide important information about the > voting-systems—in matters that are currently mostly speculative…with most > of the methods currently little-known at best. > > So then, should the voting-deadline be postponed till after the > simulation-results for at least a few of the more popular methods? > > Here are 3 possibilities: > > 1. Status-quo, original deadline-date > > 2. Deadline 48 hours after results for at least a few most popular methods > > 3. Deadline immediately after both the initial deadline & #2 have occurred > > Wouldn’t no expression of opinion support #1? > > If there’s expression in favor of #2 or #3, & no opposition expressed, > wouldn’t that suggest support for, & no opposition to, that alternative? > > …& if opposition or disagreement is expressed, wouldn’t ensuing discussion > likely lead to a consensus? > > …or, if it doesn’t, might it likely show one alternative to be acceptable > to the most people? > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info >

On 2024-04-30 21:55, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > The simulation  could provide important information about the > voting-systems—in matters that are currently mostly speculative…with > most of the methods currently little-known at best. I should get the cardinal (and cardinal hybrid) simulation results done in time, so that shouldn't be a problem. My simulator currently also returns how often a method fails to different particular strategies: burial, compromising, either (the same election is vulnerable to any of the two), and other strategies (for ranked methods, usually pushover). So reporting that should be relatively easy. However, implementing per-faction stats would be much more difficult. I don't want to put pressure on myself to get it done, but I don't want to hold up the poll either. So I would support the status quo. I'll write a post about the cardinal and hybrid methods when I've verified the results, and probably post a link to the per-strategy breakdown. If I get to implement additional methods or stats reporting within the deadline, then that's all icing. But if not, I would suggest just going with what we have. -km

👍 On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 14:15 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote: > On 2024-04-30 21:55, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > > The simulation could provide important information about the > > voting-systems—in matters that are currently mostly speculative…with > > most of the methods currently little-known at best. > > I should get the cardinal (and cardinal hybrid) simulation results done > in time, so that shouldn't be a problem. > > My simulator currently also returns how often a method fails to > different particular strategies: burial, compromising, either (the same > election is vulnerable to any of the two), and other strategies (for > ranked methods, usually pushover). So reporting that should be > relatively easy. > > However, implementing per-faction stats would be much more difficult. I > don't want to put pressure on myself to get it done, but I don't want to > hold up the poll either. > > So I would support the status quo. I'll write a post about the cardinal > and hybrid methods when I've verified the results, and probably post a > link to the per-strategy breakdown. > > If I get to implement additional methods or stats reporting within the > deadline, then that's all icing. But if not, I would suggest just going > with what we have. > > -km >