[EM] 25th anniversary of the election-methods list coming up....

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[EM] 25th anniversary of the election-methods list coming up....

Rob Lanphier-3
Hi everyone,

Nearly 25 years ago, I sent the inaugural message to the "EM" list
(see [1]; I've also quoted the nearly 25-year-old message below).
That was back in the pre-Dreamhost days.  I migrated the mailing list
to Dreamhost.com in March 2003 (see [2]), but I think the more
significant anniversary is this coming next week (on Monday, February
15).  That was February 15, 1996 was when discussions started
happening on the new election-methods list.

The election-methods mailing list has changed a LOT since 1996.  Back
in 1996, I had only just learned about the Condorcet winner criterion
(or the "CWC"[3]).  Oh to be young again; I had also only recently
learned that "alternative vote" (as they call it in Australia) was not
Condorcet winner compliant.  Moreover, Mike Ossipoff had convinced me
that it was important on the "elections-reform" mailing list (or as we
called it back in the day: the "ER-list").  The ER-list[4] was the
sister list (brother list?  sibling list?) of the EM-list, and it was
the older sibling.  ER used its size and age advantage against EM
quite a bit in the early days.  Now ER has gone missing, and EM is
turning 25-years-old, so EM isn't as worried about being beat up by
it's older sibling.  :-D

The reason for the "EM" and "ER" nicknames: the mailing list software
the respective mailing lists used back in 1996 would preface the
subject line with a prefex in square brackets.  Mail to the EM list
would have "[EM]" prepended to the subject line of every message.
Mail to the ER list would have "[ER]" prepended.  Advanced mailing
list software would recognize square-bracketed prefixes in the subject
line, and not add to them.  So that made it possible for people to add
mailing lists to the discussion, and many discussions would spill over
from one mailing list to the next.  (for example, a heated discussion
between Donald Saari, Mike Ossipoff and other members of the EM
list[5]).  Cc'ing a second mailing list was really common in 1996;
these days, we insist on using online forums.

Anyway, what should we do to celebrate February 15?  I suppose I
should probably at least address some of the weird list issues that
Kristofer Munsterhjelm, but it seems like we should do something a
little more fun.

Rob Lanphier
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
...and many other email addresses that are overwhelmed with spam

[1] http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1996-February/065327.html
[2] http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2003-March/074889.html
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_winner_criterion
[4]:
[5]: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//1996-October/thread.html#66053

p.s. Below is the first message to the election-methods mailing list,
sent on Thursday evening, February 15, 1996.  At least, this is the
first one there's a record of.  There might be a prize to the first
person who finds the spelling error in my 1996 email (then again,
there might not be!!

----
From robla at eskimo.com  Thu Feb 15 21:34:05 1996
From: robla at eskimo.com (Rob Lanphier)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 21:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: New "election-methods" list
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>

I'm starting up an "election-methods-list" list to discuss single-winner
reform, the relative merits of different PR systems, and the technical
underpinnings of all election methods.  This list is intended to
compliment, not to replace, the existing "elections-reform" list.

Please continue to discuss the various electoral reform movements in the
U.S. and throughout the world in the "elections-reform" list.
"elections-reform" is still the best forum for discussing strategies used
in reform campaigns, specific legislation addressing reform, and
educational material about reform.

What is the difference, you ask?  "election-methods-list" discussions will
most likely be more technical in nature, with the ultimate goal of
providing recommendations and educational material to the members of
"elections-reform".  There have been complaints in the past that
discussions on "elections-reform" have been too technical, and
"election-methods-list" has been created to offload the more prolific
technical discussions to "elections-reform".  It lets folks use
"elections-reform"  to stay abreast of current activity in electoral
reform without fear of their inbox exploding.

To subscribe to "election-methods-list", send mail to majordomo at eskimo.com
with no subject line (any subject will be ignored), and the following one
line in the body of your message:

subscribe election-methods-list

My apologies to anybody who stumbled on the web page that I set up a week
ago at http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/cpr/election-methods.html and tried
to subscribe (and failed, because the list didn't exist yet).  In the time I
was waiting for the list to get set up, I set up the web page.
Everything should *now* work according to the instructions on that page.

That's all there is to it.  Let me know if you have any questions about
the new list.

Thanks,
Rob Lanphier
robla at eskimo.com
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] 25th anniversary of the election-methods list coming up....

VoteFair-2
Maybe announce the anniversary on Reddit in the r/EndFPTP subreddit?

It might be insightful for younger folks to learn that a group of people
have been pioneering better vote-counting methods -- and waiting a long
time for increased interest in adopting better voting methods.

Mentioning the overlap with Electowiki might be appropriate.

(I'm not offering to do this post. Everything I post on Reddit gets
automatically, and immediately, downvoted by bots.)

Richard Fobes

On 2/8/2021 8:43 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Nearly 25 years ago, I sent the inaugural message to the "EM" list
> (see [1]; I've also quoted the nearly 25-year-old message below).
> That was back in the pre-Dreamhost days.  I migrated the mailing list
> to Dreamhost.com in March 2003 (see [2]), but I think the more
> significant anniversary is this coming next week (on Monday, February
> 15).  That was February 15, 1996 was when discussions started
> happening on the new election-methods list.
>
> The election-methods mailing list has changed a LOT since 1996.  Back
> in 1996, I had only just learned about the Condorcet winner criterion
> (or the "CWC"[3]).  Oh to be young again; I had also only recently
> learned that "alternative vote" (as they call it in Australia) was not
> Condorcet winner compliant.  Moreover, Mike Ossipoff had convinced me
> that it was important on the "elections-reform" mailing list (or as we
> called it back in the day: the "ER-list").  The ER-list[4] was the
> sister list (brother list?  sibling list?) of the EM-list, and it was
> the older sibling.  ER used its size and age advantage against EM
> quite a bit in the early days.  Now ER has gone missing, and EM is
> turning 25-years-old, so EM isn't as worried about being beat up by
> it's older sibling.  :-D
>
> The reason for the "EM" and "ER" nicknames: the mailing list software
> the respective mailing lists used back in 1996 would preface the
> subject line with a prefex in square brackets.  Mail to the EM list
> would have "[EM]" prepended to the subject line of every message.
> Mail to the ER list would have "[ER]" prepended.  Advanced mailing
> list software would recognize square-bracketed prefixes in the subject
> line, and not add to them.  So that made it possible for people to add
> mailing lists to the discussion, and many discussions would spill over
> from one mailing list to the next.  (for example, a heated discussion
> between Donald Saari, Mike Ossipoff and other members of the EM
> list[5]).  Cc'ing a second mailing list was really common in 1996;
> these days, we insist on using online forums.
>
> Anyway, what should we do to celebrate February 15?  I suppose I
> should probably at least address some of the weird list issues that
> Kristofer Munsterhjelm, but it seems like we should do something a
> little more fun.
>
> Rob Lanphier
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
> ...and many other email addresses that are overwhelmed with spam
>
> [1] http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1996-February/065327.html
> [2] http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2003-March/074889.html
> [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_winner_criterion
> [4]:
> [5]: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//1996-October/thread.html#66053
>
> p.s. Below is the first message to the election-methods mailing list,
> sent on Thursday evening, February 15, 1996.  At least, this is the
> first one there's a record of.  There might be a prize to the first
> person who finds the spelling error in my 1996 email (then again,
> there might not be!!
>
> ----
> From robla at eskimo.com  Thu Feb 15 21:34:05 1996
> From: robla at eskimo.com (Rob Lanphier)
> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 21:34:05 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: New "election-methods" list
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>
> I'm starting up an "election-methods-list" list to discuss single-winner
> reform, the relative merits of different PR systems, and the technical
> underpinnings of all election methods.  This list is intended to
> compliment, not to replace, the existing "elections-reform" list.
>
> Please continue to discuss the various electoral reform movements in the
> U.S. and throughout the world in the "elections-reform" list.
> "elections-reform" is still the best forum for discussing strategies used
> in reform campaigns, specific legislation addressing reform, and
> educational material about reform.
>
> What is the difference, you ask?  "election-methods-list" discussions will
> most likely be more technical in nature, with the ultimate goal of
> providing recommendations and educational material to the members of
> "elections-reform".  There have been complaints in the past that
> discussions on "elections-reform" have been too technical, and
> "election-methods-list" has been created to offload the more prolific
> technical discussions to "elections-reform".  It lets folks use
> "elections-reform"  to stay abreast of current activity in electoral
> reform without fear of their inbox exploding.
>
> To subscribe to "election-methods-list", send mail to majordomo at eskimo.com
> with no subject line (any subject will be ignored), and the following one
> line in the body of your message:
>
> subscribe election-methods-list
>
> My apologies to anybody who stumbled on the web page that I set up a week
> ago at http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/cpr/election-methods.html and tried
> to subscribe (and failed, because the list didn't exist yet).  In the time I
> was waiting for the list to get set up, I set up the web page.
> Everything should *now* work according to the instructions on that page.
>
> That's all there is to it.  Let me know if you have any questions about
> the new list.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob Lanphier
> robla at eskimo.com
> http://www.eskimo.com/~robla
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
>
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] 25th anniversary of the election-methods list coming up....

Kristofer Munsterhjelm-3
In reply to this post by Rob Lanphier-3
On 09/02/2021 05.43, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> p.s. Below is the first message to the election-methods mailing list,
> sent on Thursday evening, February 15, 1996.  At least, this is the
> first one there's a record of.  There might be a prize to the first
> person who finds the spelling error in my 1996 email (then again,
> there might not be!!

Does finding a grammatical error in the anniversary post itself count? :-)

-km
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] 25th anniversary of the election-methods list coming up....

Stéphane Rouillon
From a nerd point of view, you could organize an electronic convention to determine the best single-winner method. Such election should be recursive because it would use a candidate method to determine the next until it converges or circles. I suggest the median of differences. And we could all talk and vote around a zoom video. Happy anniversary in any case!

Envoyé de mon iPhone

> Le 9 févr. 2021 à 07:34, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> On 09/02/2021 05.43, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>> p.s. Below is the first message to the election-methods mailing list,
>> sent on Thursday evening, February 15, 1996.  At least, this is the
>> first one there's a record of.  There might be a prize to the first
>> person who finds the spelling error in my 1996 email (then again,
>> there might not be!!
>
> Does finding a grammatical error in the anniversary post itself count? :-)
>
> -km
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] 25th anniversary of the election-methods list coming up....

Richard Lung

Good luck with that.

Charles Dickens also had a sense of humor, a la Little Dorrit: HOW NOT
TO DO IT.


On 09/02/2021 16:00, Stéphane Rouillon wrote:

>  From a nerd point of view, you could organize an electronic convention to determine the best single-winner method. Such election should be recursive because it would use a candidate method to determine the next until it converges or circles. I suggest the median of differences. And we could all talk and vote around a zoom video. Happy anniversary in any case!
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
>> Le 9 févr. 2021 à 07:34, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> On 09/02/2021 05.43, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>>> p.s. Below is the first message to the election-methods mailing list,
>>> sent on Thursday evening, February 15, 1996.  At least, this is the
>>> first one there's a record of.  There might be a prize to the first
>>> person who finds the spelling error in my 1996 email (then again,
>>> there might not be!!
>> Does finding a grammatical error in the anniversary post itself count? :-)
>>
>> -km
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] 25th anniversary of the election-methods list coming up....

Rob Lanphier-3
In reply to this post by Kristofer Munsterhjelm-3
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:35 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 09/02/2021 05.43, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> > p.s. Below is the first message to the election-methods mailing list,
> > sent on Thursday evening, February 15, 1996.  At least, this is the
> > first one there's a record of.  There might be a prize to the first
> > person who finds the spelling error in my 1996 email (then again,
> > there might not be!!
>
> Does finding a grammatical error in the anniversary post itself count? :-)

Well, there's at least a couple of errors in the 2021 anniversary post
too, but those are a different category of error.  One hint: the error
in my 1996 email is arguably an error in grammar rather than in
spelling.

Rob
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] 25th anniversary of the election-methods list coming up....

Toby Pereira
Compliment instead of complement.

On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 22:22, Rob Lanphier
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:35 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 09/02/2021 05.43, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> > p.s. Below is the first message to the election-methods mailing list,
> > sent on Thursday evening, February 15, 1996.  At least, this is the
> > first one there's a record of.  There might be a prize to the first
> > person who finds the spelling error in my 1996 email (then again,
> > there might not be!!
>
> Does finding a grammatical error in the anniversary post itself count? :-)

Well, there's at least a couple of errors in the 2021 anniversary post
too, but those are a different category of error.  One hint: the error
in my 1996 email is arguably an error in grammar rather than in
spelling.


Rob
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[EM] ANNIVERSARY CONTEST WINNER (Re: 25th anniversary of the election-methods list coming up....)

Rob Lanphier-3
Hi folks,

We have a winner of the robla-used-the-wrong-word-25-years-ago
contest.  Toby Pereira correctly identified "compliment" vs
"complement" in my 1996 email.[1]

I never did decide what the prize should be.  What do y'all think?

Rob
[1]: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1996-February/065327.html


On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 3:06 PM Toby Pereira <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Compliment instead of complement.
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 22:22, Rob Lanphier
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:35 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 09/02/2021 05.43, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> > > p.s. Below is the first message to the election-methods mailing list,
> > > sent on Thursday evening, February 15, 1996.  At least, this is the
> > > first one there's a record of.  There might be a prize to the first
> > > person who finds the spelling error in my 1996 email (then again,
> > > there might not be!!
> >
> > Does finding a grammatical error in the anniversary post itself count? :-)
>
> Well, there's at least a couple of errors in the 2021 anniversary post
> too, but those are a different category of error.  One hint: the error
> in my 1996 email is arguably an error in grammar rather than in
> spelling.
>
>
> Rob
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info