@RobBrown So do you think the new forum will be up before this one locks up? Because it would be nice to be able to use this forum redirect as many users as possible from it one to the new one while it is still up. If not, have you asked @fsargent or other members of CES if they can extend the lock date just a few weeks (if you can get the new one up in a few weeks)? Do you think that they would be willing to do that?
“This forum is closed. CES no longer supports it. An independent forum for the community is here.”
I suspect there are a lot of people who will follow links or whatever to the forum in the future and we want the referral.
Hopefully the new one will be up pretty quick. Be sure to vote on the domain, at the very least, we’ll know where it will be and any note left on the old forum can point to the new one, even if the new one just has a placeholder page for a week or however long it takes to get things up and running.
And worst case scenario, the most recent thread posted to the old forum can be titled “here is where our new forum is located”.
I talked with Aaron of CES today, and emphasized the importance of keeping the existing forum URLs here functional over the long term, so I’m glad to see that Felix also was on-board with the plan to at least archive the current content of this forum in-place.
As the actual creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee famously wrote: Hypertext Style: Cool URIs don’t change.. And if they do have to change, they should at least be redirected in a useful way, to build on the momentum of all the people that published links to them. Remember - those are our people - out there on the web, linking to great content here about one of the most important things we deal with: how to make good collective decisions!
It also sounds like they’ll be able to transfer us ownership of the google group https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/electionscience in a de-branded way. That would also be important so we can direct people who end up a the URLs there towards our new forum.
I look forward to the new site. Thanks to all those involved!
Have we decided on a domain name yet? The forum is going to close in a few hours if CES sticks to their stated deadline, so we should probably either announce it or announce a place where it will be announced when we decide. Maybe we could announce it on equal.vote since the new forum will be a coalition partner. @Sara_Wolf
Maybe we can agree to put up the final domain on electowiki. Make a page and add it here
OK, that sounds like a good idea. None of the other organizations have forum in the name so it should be clear which one it is.
What about the one over on Google? Can you convince Aaron and Felix to preserve that one as an archive as well, for the same reasons?
As I noted:
It also sounds like they’ll be able to transfer us ownership of the google group … in a de-branded way. That would also be important so we can direct people who end up a the URLs there towards our new forum.
But I haven’t heard the details from them yet.
Hi Forum Folks,
The poll results are in, but they’re not a great match with each other. In any case it’s a good starting point for us to know more about people’s preferences and make a final decision at the next meeting.
Url Winner- electoralscience.vote (Still have not heard back from CES on their feelings on us using Electoral Science so that’s a yes?)
Name Winner- Electoral Reform Forum (Try saying that out loud three times fast!)
Top Compatible Options:
- Electoral Science Forum @ electoralscience.vote
- Equal Vote Forum @ forum.equal.vote
- Forum for Electoral Reform @ electoforum.com
- Other new or more creative suggestions?
Does anyone want to call and host a next meeting? Maybe Wednesday or Thursday evening at 7:30pdt? If you can’t make either of those please suggest other times.
When I was putting the vote data into R, I noticed that electoralscience.vote was listed twice, and that the scores were not identical. Only 6 voters scored the duplicates the same.
I demand a chaotic recount that accomplishes nothing but produces a lot of drama for my entertainment.
Why doesn’t each individual election systems enthusiast simply create his or her own bbPress forum. This would promote much more independent thinking. These could easily be tied together in many various ways. See:
Webhosts that are seriously independent, which I recommend are:
I never have my domain names registered by the company that hosts my site, as trouble with hosting leads to trouble with registrations. I always strictly avoid the Big **Daddy company.
(It’s savvy to stay well clear of Google and similar giant censorial media corporations.)
(NAs not reflected in the table of pairwise matchups)
You got your wish!
So… I got different results for the domain. I hesitate to share them I know I’ll be accused of cheating, since the one that I proposed seems to win. I’d be super embarrassed if it’s a mistake on my part. Regardless, I share two Codepens, the first of which parses the CSV file, and the second which runs it under a bunch of methods. Under Score there is a tie, but all the other methods pick the same one.
I could have messed up, so please check my work:
a: forum.equal.vote b: electoralscience.vote c: Electionscienceforum.org d: forum.electoralscience.com e: electoforum.com f: votingtheory.com g: electoraltheory.com h: electoralscience.com i: electoralscience.vote j: electoralscience.org k: forum.vote --------------------------------------- a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i j k ****** processed 18 ballots ****** ****** Pairwise wins ****** f: 10 j: 8 k: 8 b: 6 h: 6 c: 4 i: 4 d: 2 g: 2 a: 1 e: 0 ****** Score ****** f: 55 (3.0556) j: 55 (3.0556) h: 54 (3.0000) b: 53 (2.9444) k: 52 (2.8889) c: 42 (2.3333) i: 42 (2.3333) d: 36 (2.0000) g: 36 (2.0000) e: 33 (1.8333) a: 27 (1.5000) ****** STAR ****** f: 9 j: 6 ****** Cardinal Baldwin ****** ***** round 1 ***** f: 3.0556 j: 3.0556 h: 3.0000 b: 2.9444 k: 2.8889 c: 2.3333 i: 2.3333 d: 2.0000 g: 2.0000 e: 1.8333 a: 1.5000 ***** round 2 ***** f: 2.8704 j: 2.7500 b: 2.7083 k: 2.6852 h: 2.6065 i: 1.9861 c: 1.9352 d: 1.6898 g: 1.6481 e: 1.5602 ***** round 3 ***** f: 2.9167 j: 2.8056 b: 2.7500 k: 2.7222 h: 2.5880 i: 2.0000 c: 1.8380 d: 1.6620 g: 1.6389 ***** round 4 ***** f: 2.9167 j: 2.8056 b: 2.7500 k: 2.7222 h: 2.5880 i: 2.0000 c: 1.8380 d: 1.6620 ***** round 5 ***** f: 2.9630 j: 2.7130 k: 2.7083 b: 2.5694 h: 2.4954 c: 1.7454 i: 1.7361 ***** round 6 ***** f: 2.9630 k: 2.7083 j: 2.6204 b: 2.4769 h: 2.4028 c: 1.7454 ***** round 7 ***** f: 2.7778 k: 2.7083 j: 2.4815 h: 2.2639 b: 2.2454 ***** round 8 ***** f: 2.7917 k: 2.7083 j: 2.4815 h: 2.0417 ***** round 9 ***** f: 2.7222 k: 2.3380 j: 2.1111 ***** round 10 ***** f: 1.9444 k: 1.3889 ****** STLR ****** f: 65.7500 j: 62.0000
Edit: here, just for fun:
It’s slightly interactive at:
The bar charts are… ummm, I don’t know what they mean. I did this matrix widget ages ago, please don’t look at the code!
So we agree on score sum. I think the difference between my results and yours is that you treated blanks as scores of 0, whereas I treated them abstention.
Yes I didn’t mean to say mine doesn’t agree with yours (I hadn’t noticed yours when I posted mine) – mine (and yours) don’t agree with the results posted above and shown in the spreadsheet.
This is all very confusing. According to the results posted by @Sara_Wolf the winner is electoralscience.vote. In these results, votingtheory.com was joint second last in the score phase of the STAR election and was nowhere near the run-off. There is also a separate thread declaring forum.vote to be the winner, although reading down, that claim seems to have been retracted. But then also we have votingtheory.com as the winner as above.
Marylander and I both used the ballots from the spreadsheet and ran tabulations, and votingtheory.com came out on top for both of us. (we did it separately, I hadn’t noticed his results when I posted mine)
Electoralscience.vote didn’t come out particularly close. But we did notice that the last ballot submitted was not included in the tabulations that had electoralscience.vote winning (and that ballot gave votingtheory.com a 5 and electoralscience.vote a 0).
You are welcome to check my work in the two Codepens linked above.
I went ahead and got forum.vote a few days ago based on preliminary information, simply because I hadn’t heard anything more and the deadline was approaching. Since the old forum is still working, and I haven’t gotten any final word, I’m just going to wait to finish up. I may not have a lot of time to work on it for a few days, so my hope is the old forum stays working for a bit more.
Edit: I relooked at the spreadsheet that looks like this;
The numbers at bottom are way off. I think they might be correct numbers, but with the names rearranged, ummmm… randomly? For instance, the numbers shown for votingtheory.com add up to 50, not 36, electoralscience.vote should be 42 not 55, and electoraltheory.com should be 36 not 54, and forum.equal.vote should be 25 not 53. (again, this is before the final ballot which put votingtheory.com at 55)
(one thing I find interesting: if you don’t count that last ballot as is the case above, votingtheory.com remains the Condorcet winner and Cardinal Baldwin winner, however it is in 4th place as far as its Score tabulation, which means it does not win under STAR…)
(42, 36, 25, 33, 55, 47, 53, 54, 42, 50, 36)
So the numbers at the bottom are like a sorted version of this but with an extra 47 and without 25. The entries that weren’t in the runoff are listed in the order that they appeared on the ballot in the spreadsheet you screencapped. I can’t figure out how the two entries in the runoff were selected though.
This race might not be in STAR’s wheelhouse, as there are a lot of very similar entries.
Sorry for all the confusion.
I accidentally set up the Google Forms wrong which scrambled the results and then asked Jay to help. I also had one of the electoralscience.vote in there twice and they got different scores, so we really should just redo this.
I think it’s safe to throw out a few options that didn’t get any support, and if I had veto I would likely veto the word Theory. It brings to mind all the reasons I would rather not be involved and has connotations of endless theorizing with no results. The emotional response I get there is exhaustion. That may be spilling out from other areas of my life as well, but it’s not a project name that inspires. Lol.
It sounds like CES would like to veto Electoral Science, the name, though the sentiment seems to hold in regards to STAR Voting, VSE, and CES as well.
The name Electoral Reform Forum was not loved by many, and saying Reform Forum out loud reminds me of trying to say rural juror, so…
I’d also like to add that we did have agreement to use STAR Voting for this poll, but that it’s a poll, not an election. Let’s keep building consensus until we have a good matched set of name+url that has broad support. Please post comments or additional ideas below. I still think a more creative name than we’ve come up with so far would be great, but this is all I’ve got.
Suggestions to keep or add: (Name - URL)
Equal Vote Electoral Reform Forum - forum.equal.vote
Equal Vote Forum - forum.equal.vote
Equal Vote Forum - forum.vote
Electoral Research Forum - forum.vote
Electoral Research Forum - electoforum.vote
Electoforum - electoforum.vote
Independent Electoral Research Forum - forum.vote
Are folks down to meet this Wednesday at 7:30 pacific next week and each week till we are up and running? If so I’ve made a zoom for that:
Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 834 9541 1162
One tap mobile
+13462487799,83495411162# US (Houston)
+16699006833,83495411162# US (San Jose)
Dial by your location
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
Meeting ID: 834 9541 1162
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kUXQw26SS