We Discuss _Proposed_ methods.

[Steve Eppley]

Mike O wrote:
--snip--
>Demorep & Bruce: How would you feel about "methods-all-encompassing"? 
>You could discuss many, many methods, without putting that
>discussion on election-methods-list, where the Single-Winner
>Committee has a specific task to do, choosing among a few proposed
>methods.

My recollection is that this EM list was not created just for
single-winner work.  At the time, there were a few people using
ordinary group cc:s for two separate small discussions.  One was the
Single Winner Committee, the other was a group focussed on whether
the ER list format should be changed/split.  Rob's EM list was
created more in response to the latter group's "decision" to split
the ER list, and the SWC was invited to share the new list.  Rob's 
primary purpose for this list is to produce educational documents, 
I think; a vote for a sw recommendation is a tolerable distraction, 
since it won't take much time and may serve a useful purpose.

So I think it will be a matter of individual self-discipline to
avoid spending too much time on interesting distractions (like new
and wondrous voting methods), much as it is in day-to-day life. 

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)