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