---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 23:03 Subject: Re: Poll question and voting period To: Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> I should emphasize that you needn’t rule on whether a method is on one side or the other, of a proposable/unproposable demarcation-line. A feeling about a *degree* of unproposability—an impression or feeling about that— might or might not influence your feeling about its suitability for public-proposal. On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 22:58 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 22:35 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> >> How are we supposed to know what is "proposable" and what isn't? >> > If you’ve talked to a few people, you’ll Jayant idea how much > complicatedness is considered acceptable to people. > > You can tell if a method is complicated. Approval isn’t complicated. > Margins-Sorted Approval & other double-sort methods are more complicated > than people want to hear about. It’s important to talk to people. You’ll > see what I mean. > > You don’t need a distinction-line for unproposability. …& no one’s > evaluating the qualification of each of us to judge any aspect of merit, > including proposability. > > This isn’t complicated or PhD-requiring: Just rank according to your > perception, your feeling, about how suitable for a public-proposal a method > is. That can be based on merit-in-use, or proposability, or any combination > of those. …& if you don’t think proposability matters, then that, too, is > your call when you rank for suitability for proposal > > My point is, no one’ expecting anyone to be an infallible expert with the > right judgment. > > So don’t worry about it. > > If you personally feel that proposability doesn’t matter, or that you > can’t judge it, then that, too, is your call. > > …but you really can’t make that judgment for the rest of us. > > > No one will question your judgment. > > (well, I might argue with you during the electioneering & voting period, > to influence other voters, but no one questions your judgment & > qualification to rank as you perceive.) > >> Or assuming we have some idea about that, how do we know exactly where >> the border between proposable and unproposable (which presumably varies a >> bit over time and from place to place) is? >> >> I suggest that we limit ourselves (for the time being) to methods that we >> think at least might be proposable, being the more optimistic in this >> regard the greater the method's merit. >> >> Our aim should be to produce an order of merit and leave the question of >> exactly how proposable this-or-that method is to would-be proposers. So if >> for example they don't think that the method at the top of our order is >> proposable, then they can just look down it until they find one that they >> think is. >> >> From this perspective it would be useful to include advice on what are >> the best balloting rules and which methods work best with various ballot >> rules and restrictions. >> >> For example I find that limiting (in either direction) the number of >> candidates the voter can to rank from the top to be unacceptable. It is >> particularly galling if the method meets Later-no-Harm and Clone >> Independence (like Hare, aka single-winner STV, aka the Alternative Vote). >> >> Also some methods are happier than others depending on whether or not >> above-bottom equal ranking is allowed. Allowing equal-ranking in Hare >> either makes the method a lot more complicated or more vulnerable to >> Push-over strategy. >> >> But most Condorcet methods are happy to allow equal-ranking and can use >> even limited-slot ratings ballots (such as ABCD grading ballots). >> >> Some indication of merit gaps, particularly in comparison with methods >> currently in use and methods that already have some significant profile >> and/or traction, would also be ideal. >> >> Chris B. >> >> >> >> >> *Michael Ossipoff* email9648742 at gmail.com >> <election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20question%20and%20voting%20period&In-Reply-To=%3CCAOKDY5B2mGiZF2EMqOguX-9RvNpALNx4jmesVAfvUPVcv-dHkQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E> >> *Thu Apr 18 18:01:47 PDT 2024* >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Yes, that’s how I initially proposed it; but later, 2 people objected to >> the unproposable complexity of many of the nominees. >> >> By that time, I’d noticed the logical fault in my initial wording that >> explicitly excluded proposability from consideration. So, when those 2 >> people objected about unproposability, that told me that it was permissible >> &. constructive for me to ask for the removal of the clause saying to >> disregard proposability. >> >> Of course that clause made no sense. It was a logical-typo. >> >> …because, if a method is unproposable, then its merit-in-use is quite >> irrelevant, since it can’t get in use. >> >> So the change that I asked for at that time, encouraged by those 2 people’s >> objections about unproposability, wasn’t to change the spirit or intent of >> the proposal..but only to correct a logically nonsensical error in the >> initial wording. >> >> So, my request is to simplify the wording by removing that illogical >> exclusion of proposability as a consideration, & simply ask that methods be >> ranked according to their suitability for public proposal. … which >> automatically includes both proposability *and* merit-in-use. >> >> …because obviously the merit-in-use of an unproposable method is irrelevant. >> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 14:49 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de <http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com>> >> wrote: >> >> >* Alright, now that I've got a little bit more time, here's the post that >> *>* I was intending to write. >> *>>* In the original EM post, Michael Ossipoff suggested there be a week-long >> *>* nomination period and then a month-long voting period. Since nobody >> *>* proposed otherwise, that's what we went with. >> *>>* Since the voting period started at 2024-04-11 05:15:00 UTC that means >> *>* that the voting deadline is >> *>>* 2024-05-11 05:15:00 UTC, inclusive. >> *>>* As for the question, MO said this: >> *>>* > This poll is intended to be about merit-in-use. ...disregarding >> *>* > winnability & proposability. ...but taking into account >> *>* > strategy-problems,, expense of implementation, expense & difficulty of >> *>* > administration, complexity & consequent insecurity of count, & >> *>* > consequent count-fraud vulnerability. So, it's about merit-in-use, in >> *>* > all its aspects. >> *>>* So, as I understand it, the question would be: >> *>>* "What methods do you consider to have the greatest merit in use for >> *>* public elections? >> *>>* For the ranked ballot, rank the methods in order of merit. >> *>>* Every aspect relevant to the methods' suitability for public use is >> *>* relevant: including vulnerability to strategy, expense of implementation >> *>* and administration, count complexity, and vulnerability to fraud. >> *>>* However, the answer should not take into account whether the method is >> *>* currently being proposed by an advocacy group, nor how much momentum a >> *>* particular group or reform movement, if it exists, enjoys at the moment." >> *>>* MO: Does that sound about right? >> *>>* (I didn't add a description of how to do Approval because lots of >> *>* different approaches and heuristics exist.) >> *>>* -km* >> >> >>