> but i thought they were reporting results in the near future. how are they
> reporting their results?
> will they be telling us who the STV winner is, the Schulze winner, the
> Ranked-pairs winner, the Borda winner,
> the Bucklin winner, the Coombs winner?
.
...
.
> what good is the site if it only reports the data and does not digest it in
> some way?
.
Kristofer is right--It's ok if the the polling website or the poll-conductor
doesn't do the count. It's enough if
the rankings are easily available to anyone who wants to count them as they
choose to. I was a bit unfair
when I implied that the poll-conductor should do the count.
.
But yes, how to count them is a problem. That problem is avoided in the
Voter's-Choice count that I'd do if
it were my poll. Maybe I'll do a poll myself, by Voter's Choic.
.
I may have mis-stated Voter's Choice yesterday. Let me reword it here:
.
Each voter, in addition to voting a ranking, an Approval ballot, and a Score
ballot, also designates
the method that he wants to decide the winner.
.
For a given alternative, and for each method choosing that alternative, that
alternative gets a point for each
person who designated that method.
.
The winner is the alternative receiving the most points.
.
This amounts to weighting the methods according to how many people have
designated them.
.
It's the fair way to aggregate the results of several different methods.
.
> if they assign the highest ranked choice to the "single affirmative vote"
> that the traditionalists want, will they be telling us who the FPTP winner is?
They can't assign the win to a method, without, first, established what method
to use. That's why
I will use Voter's-Choice in my poll
In the poll that I will conduct, if anyone wants to designate FPTP, they may.
Likewise, of course,
anyone may nominate any method they want to.
The method that you, as a voter, designate, needn't be one of the nominated
methods that we're
voting between--though it of course could be. And your designated method
needn't be simple enough
for a public proposal, though I think it would be much better if it is--so that
our election can demonstrate
publicly-proposable methods.
I'm talking a lot about my poll, though I haven't yet proposed it, or set it up
at a website (if that's how I'm
going to do it).
That brings up another point:
Website polls, of course, have nearly no security. Yes, you can require people
to register their e-mail address.
I have two e-mail accounts and addresses. If I wanted to cheat in the election,
I could register and vote
with both accounts. The current poll's registration requirement helps avoid the
most blatant ballot-
stuffing, but it doesn't prevent ballot-stuffing.
I know of one, and only one, secure way to conduct a poll on the Internet: Do
it at this mailing list.
That's how we, at EM, did polls for years. I understand that, now, it's more
popular to do polling
at other websites, because the voting is easier.
But is that worth abandoning any chance of having a secure, un-ballot-stuffed
poll? I certainly don't
think so.
In a poll conducted in the EM mailing list, each ballot will be a mailing-list
posting (like this one), whose
subject line is "Ballot" (without the quotes).
Either the voters coudl copy and paste a pre-written ballot into their ballot
postings, or else they
could simply rank the alternatives (and approve and rate them too), writing the
ranking, ratings and
approvals themselves. I'd suggest that the choice should be optional, between
those ways of voting.
I'm going to conduct a poll. Is it ok if I do it at the EM mailing list,
instead of at a polling website,
so that the poll can have security against ballot-stuffind?
i do not know how to >
> translate a marked ranked ballot into an approval ballot or a score ballot
> without making assumptions that ma
> not be valid.
.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
