Relax Michael, I have other things to do than learn about possible candidates for US presidential election. But it is in my list. It will come, all in good time. Just wait... I did not even found the time to answer 10 other EM interesting posts.
Stéphane Rouillon >From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: [EM] The list's complete rejection of the poll >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:59:41 +0000 > > >It calls for a little comment. A number of times before, I've proposed >polls, and usually a number of people voted. Enough to do a meaningful, >interesting count. This is the first one in which not even one person >(other >than myself) voted. > >Obviously that's always a possibility. It was a possibility with each one >of >the previous polls I conducted here. That never stopped me from proposing >those polls, just as it didn't prevent me from proposing the current one. > >Likewise, one wouldn't offer any methods or criteria if one worried about >"what if it isn't popular, or isn't accepted at all?" wv Condorcet was a >proposal of mine that caught on pretty well. So did FBC. My other criteria >got a little favorable attention. Steve Eppley proposed some related (but >different) ones, and mentioned my (but not favorably). There was a little >interest in the majority defensive strategy criteria, but fashon moves on, >and I accept that, and it doesn't matter. I wanted to propose those >criteria >because _I_ think they're important. That's all the reason I need to >propose >something. > >Same with polls. I've said that you don't know how you feel about the >methods, and you don't understand the methods, till you vote with them and >count them. I stand by that statement. There should be a presidential EM >poll. There is one. That's good enough. > >I've told a number of advantages of my poll over the usual Internet >automated polls. Another advantage that I haven't mentioned yet is that, >with list-posted ballots, you can obsereve the votes coming in, and can >count them yourself--you can participate in a way that is impossible with >an >automated Internet poll. > >Anyway, the list's complete rejection of the poll called for comment, so >that's my comment. > >Mike Ossipoff > > >---- >election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
