accidentally set up the Google Forms wrong which scrambled the results and then asked Jay to help.
No problem… We got the original ballots, and obviously there are people in the forums who can tabulate them. @Marylander and I got the correct results to everyone shortly after you posted them 5 days ago.
also had one of the electoralscience.vote in there twice and they got different scores, so we really should just redo this.
Well, @fsargent has (quite reasonably) said that CES isn’t going to like anything “electoral science” anyway. It really shouldn’t matter that it’s in there twice, because our method shouldn’t be thrown off by clones or irrelevant alternatives. There is also no reason to think that people changed their votes on that significantly because there were two. Neither of those two were front runners anyway. Even electoralscience.org was above them.
It’s been nearly a month since our meeting when we decided to hold a vote on this. @fsargent has been patient and kept the old forum up.
I understand that you’re not fond of the word “theory.” I also have frustration with “endless theorizing”, but at the end of the day, it’s a theoretical subject to me. And in these forums, “Election Theory” is the category where 90% of the action is. “Voting theory” is arguably the name of the academic discipline, which is distinct from psephology, and is a subset of social choice theory: Who are the Academics in Psephology?. I haven’t heard a complaint from anyone else regarding the word theory, such as here: Should we move forward with votingtheory.com? 
My personal approach to the “endless theorizing” is to work to push the community in the direction of actually building things, and of using our own tools and approaches for practical purposes within the community. “Practice what you preach,” “eat your own dogfood,” and all that. And yeah, voting on the domain name is completely in that spirit. From my perspective, this little vote is a significant step away from just unproductive spinning on theory. We’re actually using our stuff, and that is good!
This is why I wanted to get involved, and why I saw this as a big opportunity to help move things forward. A new forum where we can (in due time!) integrate voting widgets and visualizers would be amazing, and could allow us to launch these tools more widely to other groups on the web and thus spread the word of “better voting methods.”
I’m a builder to the core, and while we’ve been waiting on the domain decision so we can go ahead and open the new forum, I’ve been doing a lot of work on such things as Codepens (note than Essenzia has jumped on board as well), just to try to start that ball rolling. These actually worked well for correctly tabulating the ballots for this very vote. This kind of stuff is, to me, the exact opposite of endless theorizing.
I can also see a day where we hold regular votes within the forum. Like to vote for “election method of the month” or whatever. There are all kinds of creative things we can do. The reasoning for this should be obvious. One, we get to use the methods we talk about. Two, we gradually move toward consensus, rather than so much going round and round.
I have to say, though, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of starting this new forum out by holding a vote, then rejecting that vote for no reason other than someone doesn’t like the results. That’s not a good look for a forum about voting. If that’s what we have to do, ok, but it certainly is against the spirit of where I hope this forum goes.
- Technically there was one complaint about “theory”, by rkjoyce. However, I believe his approach to the forums is, ummm … not reflective of the mainstream.
- Most of the work is done, there is a NodeBB forum running on Heroku, but I do need a final decision on domain before continuing, at least if I don’t want to make it more work than it needs to be.