Kristofer, I preferred the order in which they were nominated. I don't see any problem with continuing to "electioneer" while voting is open, or really with allowing people to change their vote. The names of the people who nominated each method might be interesting so that we know to whom we should address questions (at least on the method's definitions). Quite a few of these methods are very similar to at least one other.  BTW, what is "usual judgement"?? Chris > Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections > > *Kristofer Munsterhjelm*km_elmet at t-online.de > <mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3C19e103d5-f2e0-ce23-6f7a-e38d35bef9fb%40t-online.de%3E> > /Thu Apr 11 02:45:13 PDT 2024/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > On 2024-04-10 04:58, Forest Simmons wrote: > >/I would like to nominate ... />//>/Max Strength Transitive Beatpath: />//>/Elect the head of the strongest transitive  beatpath. / > Okay. (Sorry for not getting to this earlier!) > > The final list is, in random order: > > Smith//Score > Approval with manual runoff > Smith//Approval (explicit - specified approval cutoff) > Schwartz-Woodall > Copeland//Borda (also called Ranked Robin) > MinMax(wv) > Double Defeat, Hare > Plurality > Majority Judgement (as a category; includes usual judgement etc.) > IRV > Max Strength Transitive Beatpath > STAR > Woodall > Schulze > Baldwin > Black > Approval > Benham > Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-rated whole) > Gross Loser Elimination > Smith//DAC > RCIPE > RP(wv) > Smith//Approval (implicit - of all ranked) > Margins-Sorted Approval > > In addition, the shorthand category > "Condorcet-IRV" > corresponds to including (or equal-ranking) all of Benham, Woodall, and > Schwartz-Woodall. > > -km

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 05:09 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Kristofer, > > I preferred the order in which they were nominated. > That’s easier for me, because there isn’t a change of order from the lists that we’ve had. > I don't see any problem with continuing to "electioneer" while voting is > open, or really with allowing people to change their vote. > Agreed, to both. If we couldn’t change our vote, later voters would have an advantage. No reason to not allow it. I changed my Approval vote after a few minutes. When no on said anything about the special merits of their nominee, I assumed that we weren’t going to have that. So I just equal-ranked all of the ones that I didn’t know anything about, below those I like, & above the ones I didn’t like. I just assumed that we’d preference-rank what we know, & middle-equal-rank the rest. But is it widely felt that we want a merit explanation & questions time? If so maybe it would be conveniently-flexible for the next month to be for advocacy, explanation, & questions. Or divide the month in half, with the 2nd half for voting. I don’t have an opinion on those matters. Either answer would be fine. The month overall remaining duration was just what sounded about right as an initial default, easily changed by consensus discussion or anyone calling for a vote. > > > The names of the people who nominated each method might be interesting so > that we know to whom we should address questions > (at least on the method's definitions). > Sure, or the questions could just be posted, & the nominations would notice them. > > > Quite a few of these methods are very similar to at least one other. BTW, > what is "usual judgement"?? > Usual-Judgment is a relative of MJ, but with a different tiebreaker. There are several of those. Kristofer nominated the whole family. If the several people in the discussion agree on a parameter, & no one disagrees when they hear about it. That might be the easiest way to decide things, with a vote not usually needed, especially because these aren’t controversial decisions. > > > Chris > > > Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections *Kristofer > Munsterhjelm* km_elmet at t-online.de > <election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3C19e103d5-f2e0-ce23-6f7a-e38d35bef9fb%40t-online.de%3E> > *Thu Apr 11 02:45:13 PDT 2024* > > > ------------------------------ > > On 2024-04-10 04:58, Forest Simmons wrote: > >* I would like to nominate ... > *> >* Max Strength Transitive Beatpath: > *> >* Elect the head of the strongest transitive beatpath. > * > Okay. (Sorry for not getting to this earlier!) > > The final list is, in random order: > > Smith//Score > Approval with manual runoff > Smith//Approval (explicit - specified approval cutoff) > Schwartz-Woodall > Copeland//Borda (also called Ranked Robin) > MinMax(wv) > Double Defeat, Hare > Plurality > Majority Judgement (as a category; includes usual judgement etc.) > IRV > Max Strength Transitive Beatpath > STAR > Woodall > Schulze > Baldwin > Black > Approval > Benham > Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-rated whole) > Gross Loser Elimination > Smith//DAC > RCIPE > RP(wv) > Smith//Approval (implicit - of all ranked) > Margins-Sorted Approval > > In addition, the shorthand category > "Condorcet-IRV" > corresponds to including (or equal-ranking) all of Benham, Woodall, and > Schwartz-Woodall. > > -km > > >