Express any wish for democratic choice of poll-parameters. Do-able if desired.
(Reply is at the end of the post)
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 02:54 Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet@t-online.de
wrote:
On 2024-04-09 01:58, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
When proposing this poll, I assumed that people would prefer the
simplest & least elaborate poll-proposal.
I wasn’t trying to be autocratic or favor my favorites when I suggested
Schulze & Approval as the polling-methods. Schulze isn’t my favorite
Condorcet anyway, but it’s popular.
I don't have any particular opinion, as long as the method is Condorcet
and doesn't fail too many criteria. I think it's likely that the
cloneproof defeat-droppers will all give the same result. There might
even be a CW, which would solve the problem outright.
I proposed Ext-Minmax more to reduce the chance of ties, since Schulze
has a higher tie rate than other methods and RP breaks ties in a
somewhat opaque manner. But again: the EM posts are public so anyone can
run whatever voting method they'd like on the ranked ballots and report
their results. If ties end up being a real problem, we can deal with it
later.
I'm not an Approvalist myself, but having an Approval ballot be part of
the poll doesn't bother me either. In any case, I don't think it's
necessary to complicate matters by having a vote about what voting
method to use, or by inventing a meta-voting method.
In short, let's keep it simple!
We have a view days before the vote. Probably there will be a CW. But
remember that an output-ranking requires about as many exhaustive pairwise
counts as there are candidates…greatly increasing the chance of a
pairwise-tie… for which we don’t have agreement on a completion-rule. So
why not determine how to deal with that?
Voter’s Choice is simple & natural. You automatically approve what your
designated method chooses…& also whatever you like better. What could be
more appealing & natural when there’s no agreed-upon completion-rule?
…& isn’t it worthwhile & of interest to determine what choice-method EM
prefers for its choices
We did a Voter’s Choice poll a long time ago, to choose our method for
choices. Approval won. Now EM’s preference might have changed. It seems
worth finding-out.
-km
Don’t get ahead of yourself! :p
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 5:53 AM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
That’s a like & acceptance for Schulze. Can I also count it as a
top-ranking of Schulze?
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 02:56 Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
I'm intrigued by Alternative #2. Schulze works for me.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 11:54 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote:
On 2024-04-09 01:58, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
When proposing this poll, I assumed that people would prefer the
simplest & least elaborate poll-proposal.
I wasn’t trying to be autocratic or favor my favorites when I
suggested
Schulze & Approval as the polling-methods. Schulze isn’t my favorite
Condorcet anyway, but it’s popular.
I don't have any particular opinion, as long as the method is Condorcet
and doesn't fail too many criteria. I think it's likely that the
cloneproof defeat-droppers will all give the same result. There might
even be a CW, which would solve the problem outright.
I proposed Ext-Minmax more to reduce the chance of ties, since Schulze
has a higher tie rate than other methods and RP breaks ties in a
somewhat opaque manner. But again: the EM posts are public so anyone can
run whatever voting method they'd like on the ranked ballots and report
their results. If ties end up being a real problem, we can deal with it
later.
I'm not an Approvalist myself, but having an Approval ballot be part of
the poll doesn't bother me either. In any case, I don't think it's
necessary to complicate matters by having a vote about what voting
method to use, or by inventing a meta-voting method.
In short, let's keep it simple!
-km
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 02:54 Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet@t-online.de
wrote:
I don't think it's
necessary to complicate matters by having a vote about what voting
method to use, or by inventing a meta-voting method.
In short, let's keep it simple!
Oh we wouldn’t want to complicate it by naming a count-method for counting
it.
:-D
From the start of its initial proposal, this poll was for express-purpose
of determining EM’s expressed social-ranking of some set of voting-systems
for use in public-elections.
It was made clear that it was intended to inform people about to vote on
state-proposals on voting-system enactment.
-km
On 2024-04-10 20:56, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 02:54 Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<km_elmet@t-online.de mailto:km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote:
I don't think it's
necessary to complicate matters by having a vote about what voting
method to use, or by inventing a meta-voting method.
In short, let's keep it simple!
Oh we wouldn’t want to complicate it by naming a count-method for
counting it.
Given that I said "voting", not "naming", and given that we've both
already named some voting methods that could be used, what is your point?
-km
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:05 Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet@t-online.de
wrote:
On 2024-04-10 20:56, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 02:54 Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<km_elmet@t-online.de mailto:km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote:
I don't think it's
necessary to complicate matters by having a vote about what voting
method to use, or by inventing a meta-voting method.
In short, let's keep it simple!
Oh we wouldn’t want to complicate it by naming a count-method for
counting it.
Given that I said "voting", not "naming", and given that we've both
already named some voting methods that could be used, what is your point?
I offered Schulze as a suggestion, an optional default. After a few (3, by
my count) people expressed preference for it, I asked if people wanted to
democratically choose a different choice-method.
There was no response, indicating that they were satisfied with the
optional default suggestion.
That’s fine with me, because, as I said, Schulze has (it seems to me from
what I’ve heard) has long been the favorite Condorcet method among
Condorcetists, including at EM, at least in past years.
It’s because of so many different nominations, that I wanted to clearly
suggest a democratic choice…if people wanted one.
Acceptance of the offered optional default is a good reason to not make a
democratic choice.
Sure, there’s nothing wrong with that. No objection from me.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood or misinterpreted you.
-km
I should emphasize that equal ranking & truncation are allowed, as is
traditional for Schulze, & in EM preference.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:52 Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:05 Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet@t-online.de
wrote:
On 2024-04-10 20:56, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 02:54 Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<km_elmet@t-online.de mailto:km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote:
I don't think it's
necessary to complicate matters by having a vote about what voting
method to use, or by inventing a meta-voting method.
In short, let's keep it simple!
Oh we wouldn’t want to complicate it by naming a count-method for
counting it.
Given that I said "voting", not "naming", and given that we've both
already named some voting methods that could be used, what is your point?
I offered Schulze as a suggestion, an optional default. After a few (3, by
my count) people expressed preference for it, I asked if people wanted to
democratically choose a different choice-method.
There was no response, indicating that they were satisfied with the
optional default suggestion.
That’s fine with me, because, as I said, Schulze has (it seems to me from
what I’ve heard) has long been the favorite Condorcet method among
Condorcetists, including at EM, at least in past years.
It’s because of so many different nominations, that I wanted to clearly
suggest a democratic choice…if people wanted one.
Acceptance of the offered optional default is a good reason to not make a
democratic choice.
Sure, there’s nothing wrong with that. No objection from me.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood or misinterpreted you.
-km
A better words of what I meant is:
It’s important that the count be by a method that EM members like, because
otherwise the poll would be meaningless for the purpose of expressing EM
preference among methods.
That’s why I so emphatically wanted to make it be one there people like.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:05 Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet@t-online.de
wrote:
On 2024-04-10 20:56, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 02:54 Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<km_elmet@t-online.de mailto:km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote:
I don't think it's
necessary to complicate matters by having a vote about what voting
method to use, or by inventing a meta-voting method.
In short, let's keep it simple!
Oh we wouldn’t want to complicate it by naming a count-method for
counting it.
Given that I said "voting", not "naming", and given that we've both
already named some voting methods that could be used, what is your point?
-km