Nominations are still open, because I haven’t gotten more participation. But, even if there are (at first at least) only 2 people other than me who express interest, if the interest among even us few is definite, then let’s proceed with the nominations for another 48 hours, starting now, & then voting after that… regardless of how small the election is. Say, a 1-week voting-period, starting 48 hours after this message posts.

So yes, state your nominations for 1) Voting systems as candidates; 2) Voting systems suggested for the voting & counting; 3) Presidential candidates.

My nominations

1 & #2: Approval. RP(wv). Hare.

#3: Marianne Williamson. Jill Stein.

There could be a nomination-period of a few days

Is it closed yet? I wish to change all the nominations I made.

@jack-waugh

What’s the definition of Liquid-Democracy?

As cited above and stated in Wikipedia.

That 2nd single-winner variation is more complicated, & needs more detail. Is the pairwise-beat-relation between 2 candidates based on which merit regions they’re in?

Yes.

So the Condorcet loser is determined from those beat-relations? So, if more people rate A in a higher merit-region than B, than vice-versa, then A beats B.

Yes.

But mor[e] detail is needed about the expansion of the ballots.

It's linear. Didn't I explain it well enough above? I gave an algorithm in English.

For voting on voting systems, there should probably be 2 categories with separate balloting:

1. Expected merit in use, reduction of strategy-need.l

2. Overall merit as a public proposal. Including #1 above, but also easy explanation, enactability, security of the count. In other words, which method would you rather propose to the public?

I nominate the three systems I mentioned for both those categories.

What’s the definition of Liquid-Democracy?

That 2nd single-winner variation is more complicated, & needs more detail. Is the pairwise-beat-relation between 2 candidates based on which merit regions they’re in?

So the Condorcet loser is determined from those beat-relations? So, if more people rate A in a higher merit-region than B, than vice-versa, then A beats B.

But mor detail is needed about the expansion of the ballots.

For voting on voting systems, there should probably be 2 categories with separate balloting:

1. Expected merit in use, reduction of strategy-need.l

2. Overall merit as a public proposal. Including #1 above, but also easy explanation, enactability, security of the count. In other words, which method would you rather propose to the public?

Is the pairwise-beat-relation between A & B based on which is in a higher merit-region on more ballots?

Exactly.

But the expansion of the ballots needs more detailed description.

I forgot to mention that if a ballot does not mention a candidate, it must be treated as awarding that candidate the minimum score, which is -50.

After the rounds of elimination from consideration of Condorcet losers, treat each ballot so:

Eliminate from the ballot, the scorings for candidates who have been eliminated from further consideration in the election. Look at the minimum and maximum score awarded by the ballot. If these are equal, throw out the ballot. Calculate such values for variables m and b such that if the formula y = mx + b is applied to the minimum and maximum scores as x, the y value will be respectively -50 and 50. Having thereby fixed the values of m and b, apply the formula to the remaining scorings on the ballot.

Jack—
…
What’s the definition of Liquid-Voting? The 2nd variation of Score is complicated & needs more detail.
…
Is the pairwise-beat-relation between A & B based on which is in a higher merit-region on more ballots?
…
But the expansion of the ballots needs more detailed description.
…
It seems to me that there should be 2 separate categories, with separate balloting, when voting among the voting-systems:
…

1. Expected performance in use, freedom from strategy need.
   …
2. Overall desirability as a public-proposal. …including #1 above, but also easy explanation, plausible justification, brief definition, easy implementation & administration, security against error & count-fraud. i.e. Which one would you rather propose to the public?

Yes, polling provides experience with the voting-systems. It makes them concrete instead of theoretical. So, frequent polling is essential.

Polling about voting-systems, but also presidential polls.

…using a variety of methods. Especially the already familiar or popular ones.

…&, why not, whatever new-invention methods anyone wants to add. Of course the proponent of that method does the counting.

The obvious popular methods to use include are
Approval, Condorcet, STAR & Hare.

For Condorcet, I suggest the winning-votes measure of defeat-strength, due to its powerful deterrent against offensive strategy.

Ranked-Pairs (RP) & Schulze are widely acknowledged as the criteria-compliance prizewinners.

RP is much more briefly defined. Also, it’s been said that the RP winner usually pairbeats the Schulze winner.

Hare should be included, even if only for its popularity. But it could work if people use it right, though I prefer Condorcet because, if you want to reliably & thoroughly avoid strategy problems, it’s necessary to elect the CW, even when s/he’s little-liked.

In any case, Hare is fine when there isn’t perceived lesser-evil giveaway need for anyone.

So those are my nominations:

Approval
RP(wv)
STAR
Hare

I nominate those 1) as methods to use in the polls; & 2) as alternatives to vote among in the voting system polls.

Condorcet requires an exhaustive pairwise-count, for which a handcount starts becoming prohibitive when the number of candidates rises to 5.

So, if we have lots of candidates, I’ll report the Approval-winner long before I report the RP winner. Hare’s handcount-time is about the same as that of Approval.

I like the suggestion to do polls via a thread here. Sure, later make balloting & count automated, but we needn’t wait for that. Just ask people to state, in the polling-thread, their approvals, their STAR ratings, & their rankings for RP, & for Hare.

(Because I believe that our candidate-lineups are dichotomous, I’d vote different rankings for RP & Hare.)

My nominations for a presidential poll.

There could be 20 candidates, so let’s limit the 1st presidential poll to parties.

I nominate:

Green
Democrat
Libertarian
Republican

There’s no reason to delay the start of this poll.

So, I invite people to post nominations right now, for a voting system poll & a party presidential poll.

If you nominate a lot of alternatives, of course the RP result will be delayed unless someone has it automated.

For single-winner elections (if they can't be avoided), I nominate a system where the voters rate the candidates as above {50, 49, 40, 0, -40, -49, -50}, but if there is a Condorcet loser (someone beaten pairwise by each other candidate), that candidate is eliminated from further consideration in the election. This is repeated until there are no more Condorcet losers. If only one candidate remains, elect her. If there are multiple, the ballots are linearly expanded to use the whole range, and the candidate having the highest total score wins.

Lime—
Frequent polling is essential, because it demonstrates the voting-systems, & makes them concrete instead theoretical.
Polling on voting-systems, but also presidential-polls.
As was already pointed-out, though automated balloting & count would be an eventual goal, there’s no need to wait for it. Polls could be conducted right here, right now, at a polling-thread. People post their approvals, STAR-ratings & rankings.
There could be a nomination-period of a few days, for candidates in the voting-system poll & in the party presidential-poll.
…& also suggestions for methods to use. Some rank-methods could count the same rankings in their various ways, but, for some, the strategy is different, & people would have to specify which rank-count(s) their ranking(s) is/are for.
Though of course anyone could suggest, & count, any new-invention method they choose, it’s necessary that they do the counting for it.
I suggest that traditional well-known methods with some popularity, among at least some groups, are important for inclusion. They’re primary, because they’re the ones that could be enacted.
For methods for these polls, I suggest the following:

Approval
STAR
Ranked-Pairs(wv) (RP(wv) ).
Hare

I’d rank differently in RP & Hare, because RP is much more strategy-free.
Of course anyone could suggest other methods, but their value depends on their enactability.
My above-written suggestions for some methods to use in the poll (which should use various methods) are also my nominations for the “candidates”, the alternatives in the voting-system poll.
For the presidential poll, there could easily be 20 candidates. Unless someone has RP automated, I don’t know when there’d be a result, when 380 votes would have to be counted for each voter.
…
With lots of candidates, of course the Approval, STAR & Hare results would be reported long before the RP results…unless someone has RP automated.
…
Hare, STAR & Approval all have about the same count-time, which of course isn’t seriously time-consuming.
…
I’d suggest, instead of candidates, the presidential poll, at least the 1st one, should be a poll among parties.

I nominate the following 4 parties:
…
Green
…
Democrat
…
Libertarian
…
Republican

Of course anyone could nominate additional ones.
…
There’s no reason to wait, for doing this poll.
…
I invite nominations right now, for 1)Voting-systems to be used; 2) Voting systems as candidates in the voting-system poll; & 3) Political parties as candidates in the presidential poll.
…
Why delay? Start now, & post your nominations.
…
Let’s allow, say, 2 days?, for nominations.
…
,..after which approvals, STAR-ratings, RP rankings, & Hare rankings could be posted by voters, for the two polls. …& of course votes for any other proposed method that the voter chooses to participate in.

If we are going to meaningfully poll ourselves, with or without a larger community, I think a key thing is to discuss and agree on a fixed set of alternatives for people to opine on. Currently there are probably as many categorizations of voting systems as there are participants here, and many of the signatures address the systems by category. Without fixing on a set of "candidates", there is no way to run an "election" based on every participant giving opinions based on their categorizations. For example, if one person says she likes Score Voting, and another says he likes Approval, there is overlap between those opinions, since Approval is two-valued Score. We need to agree on a set of "candidates" before being polled. Maybe more than one poll would be useful, based on different ways of organizing the candidate systems. For example, one poll could just ask for levels of support for specific voting systems, and another could address categories of them.

I like the idea of frequent polls. ...on single-winner methods (ovearall proposal merit,including enactability & implentation--not just abstract performance merit), & traditional PR systems & allocation-rules.

Yes, polls with optional choice of methods, or maybe separate simultaneous versions of the poll via various methods.

I nominate, for the polls:

Approval
Ranked-Pairs(wv)
Hare

We recruit some new volunteers to our Forum Council, Tech Committee, and Moderation Committee.

From where? The forum has been nearly a ghost town for most of its existence. But if a team of volunteers want to step up, that sounds like a plan and it doesn't sound like you need what I've offered. I will admit it seems a bit like magical thinking to me, but maybe you know something I don't.

I suggest you assemble this team of volunteers first, let them convince you that they are actually going to stick around and do the work, then make decisions. To me, it doesn't make sense to make decisions assuming a bunch of people are going to be ready to take on responsibilities, especially if those people haven't been participating in the forum already. I just don't see it happening.

When talking to Jack, he seemed to be convinced there was tech team ready to jump in. So maybe I'm wrong. I just have seen no signs of this.

We keep the forum constructive and drama free.

Offering to step up and run this democratically, per the original vision, doesn't sound like drama, and I would consider it constructive. I'm not attacking you or anyone else. I'm just saying the forum wasn't gaining traction, for very predictable reasons. Meanwhile the only person who has taken on day-to-day responsibility for the forum, Jack, says he's not willing to do that anymore. I have offered to spend a lot of my time, time that most people on the council don't seem to have, to both fill in the role Jack had played, while otherwise making positive things happen.

Also regarding drama: I've gone out of my way to try to suppress drama on the forum, only once using my admin powers (in a case of doxxing, I edited a post and diplomatically DM'd its author [1]), but often stepping in [2], sometimes in the awkward situation of, well, our tech admin posting stuff that many found offensive, off-topic and divisive. I don't know if anyone else ever has, other than a couple people weighing in, such as @spelunker did when he first arrived and was greeted by some toxic content, or as @Andy-Dienes did in that same situation. (I believe we've lost Andy, one of our best contributors --- I don't want to speak for him but I believe the "tone" of the forum was a significant thing that drove him away, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't because of a discussion of the future of the forum, since he also wished for some significant changes [3]).

Regardless, I am not trying to rehash events of two years ago, and am not attacking anyone. I don't see how this is escalating anything. I do feel that general issues about the forum's future should be resolvable in public at the forum. I understand taking things to private discussion for very specific cases, but for discussing how decisions are made at the forum and such..... why the need for secrecy? If you are worried about someone coming to the forum and being put off by my post...well, sorry, but I don't get it. If they are going to be put off by anything, it is that there is little activity, and whatever activity there is is not easy to find without several clicks, and if they do that, sometimes it is toxic and off topic. Not that we are talking about options to make the forum better.

I am honestly confused as to Jack's ongoing role. I understood he was wanting to back away due to frustration over a non-responsive council. If this wasn't the case, I would never have offered to step up.

That said, I think we need a lot more than what Jack has been doing, as I have outlined above. Basically, someone who is likely to be here on a daily basis, managing the social side, adding features and organizing the site and content etc. I don't see why a forum would be expected to succeed in the absence of this.

In any case, my offer stands for the time being but unless I hear strongly enough that people want this, I'm mostly assuming that the few left at the forum aren't interested.

1. (the doxxing has been removed but this is one conversation where moderation was otherwise needed) https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/256/new-method-i-think-hare-squared/12

2. https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/301/deutschland/14
   https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/303/the-metadiscussion
   Note that if Jack wasn't the admin of the board, and we had anyone else who was actively moderating, a better way to handle it is for a moderator to delete the post, and DM Jack to diplomatically explain why without making a big public deal.

3. Here is where Andy suggested improvements , we all agreed, and nothing happened. If I had the role I propose, I would have put it to an open vote (on the forum), notified the council, and unless there were objections within a week or two, made the changes:
   https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/227/way-too-many-categories
   I would have, separately, proposed and held a vote on changing the front page to be the "recent activity page", with a banner for links to other things at the site such as the CES forum archive.

I'll note that the Equal Vote Software Development committee has been working on some of the features you've described in a modular way that should be easy to fold into the forum soon, including a tool that allows people to vote with many different voting methods. This work is already being done by a coalition of volunteers and I'm sure they would like your help. The best way to do so is to sign up to volunteer at equal.vote/join.

Hi, I'm one of the members of the equal vote software committee and I'm new to the forum. I'd be happy to start sharing regular updates here to keep people in the loop on our software projects. It could be a good way to find opportunities for collaborating and using each other's tools