On 2024-04-10 01:54, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

I mean it in the same sense you did: that your proposals carry weight
unless someone else thinks otherwise.[1]

As an example: you proposed that the ballots be ranked and Approval. If
nobody else were to object, they probably would be ranked and Approval.

That's all it is. The decentralized nature of the list of course means
that anybody can do anything. Your election result resolved by Schulze
has no formal power; anybody could use Plurality or Borda if they so want.

Nor do my suggestions have any force of decree either. They're just
given some weight by default from that some members support me making
such suggestions.

I read rb-j's post as basically "since MO is blocking so many people,
could you do what he's doing instead?". Nothing more formal than that.

-km

[1] And that I would do the pure mechanical things (like gathering up
the votes, making a post listing them all, as well as the rbvote
results, Condorcet matrix, etc.)

On 2024-04-10 03:13, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:

Thank you. I will decree that whenever voting has to be done, it must
involve a combination of Asset and gladiatorial combat. That seems
sufficiently on-point for a dictator :-)

-km

On 2024-04-10 04:58, Forest Simmons wrote:

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

Not that it's particularly relevant for a mailing list, but as an aside, I think easily the best voting method for an internet poll (which lots of forums' software allows for with just a few clicks required from the voters) is approval voting where the current result is visible at all times and people can change their vote until the end. It makes both the act of voting and strategy quite easy. If elections for public office could be done like this in a secure way, it would be my favourite method for them as well. Although to stop last minute shenanigans in serious elections, the end point might have to be non-deterministic. So you'd have the election open for e.g. a week and then it would randomly end with a half-life of e.g. an hour.
Toby
On Thursday, 11 April 2024 at 10:45:35 BST, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet@t-online.de wrote:

On 2024-04-10 04:58, Forest Simmons wrote:

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

Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

It isn’t necessary to write the list in random order. As Chris said, it
should be left  in the nominated-order. We won’t be unfairly influenced by
the order.

You’d have to ask the people who nominated Condorcet—IRV, Woodall, etc
whether or not they want to combine them as a single “candidate”.

In general, no unnecessary changes !!!

There’s a question that a few people have brought up, & which should be
dealt with:

The nominators nearly all didn’t say what special merits are claimed for
the nominees.

We’ve got 24 nominees, many we haven’t heard of, but certainly don’t know
the individual special merits of.

When I voted, about 9 hours ago I just equal-ranked all the unknowns
together as a bloc. One shouldn’t vote on what one doesn’t know.

People who know important differences between any particular nominees can &
will, of course, express their merit-differences when ranking them.

I don’t perceive a problem there, but, as Chris suggested, let’s allow
explanation, merits-description, advocacy & questions during the voting
period.

I suggested a 1-month voting period. Too long? Probably, except maybe now a
good thing if people want nominators to explain & merit-justify their
nominees. Because of a possible wish for that, my inclination is to leave
the voting duration at a month.

But, just as I’m making that suggestion, anyone can argue otherwise & call
for a vote.

For simplicity, & to accommodate all who want more information about the
nominees, I suggest leaving the voting period at 1 month.

If anyone wants to suggest a different (probably shorter) voting period,
then please say so.

Most issues can be resolved by consensus discussion among a few—those
online at the time, of course subject to the agreement of those who later
hear about it. When there’s disagreement, someone could call for a vote.

Meanwhile, not to be stopped by discussion of these issues, this is the
voting period as initially suggested, & not disagreed with by anyone yet.

Some might want a separate explanation, advocacy & questions period, to
start now., instead of the voting period.

But I like the simplicity & flexibility of allowing voting, advocacy,
questions, answers during the coming 1-month period. Less structure means
less collective structure-organizing needed, & that can make things much
easier.

No one disagreed before with the suggestion for a voting period starting
today. Then leave it so? That’s my inclination, for simplicity.

Alternative proposals? If not then let’s now indicate our preference order
for the nominees.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 02:45 Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet@t-online.de
wrote:

I prefer random order.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:22 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:

I suggest creating a list of links to the associated Wikipedia or
Electowiki articles, one for each method.  One person supplying all the
links will save time for the rest of us.  Personally I'm going to need
to read about some of these methods.

As I rank them I'm adding a brief note to each method -- [in brackets]
-- to help me keep track of the reasons for my ranking sequence, and to
reveal to others my reasons for my ranking.  I might share my non-final
ranking to give others an opportunity to change my mind.

Richard Fobes

On 4/11/2024 2:45 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:

Fortunately the nominated list has been written in two orders, & anyone can
look at whichever they want. Of course it isn’t an issue.

So let’s proceed. It’s a poll, so let’s express preference-order now.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 14:24 Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:

Yes, so it’s probably best that we have a long voting period. Any
information about the methods that we don’t already know should be shared
here.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 14:53 Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:

Yes, I too wrote some explanation with the ballot that I posted about 10
hours ago.

I posted my ballot about 1 minute after the start of the voting-period.

I told why I equal-ranked at least half of the alternatives.

I told why I added an approval-set.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 14:53 Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote: