[EM] You want us to propose methods that fail our criteria & standards?

[wclark at xoom.org]

Mike Ossipoff wrote:

> We at electionmethods reserve the right to only put up critreria that
> seem important to us. As you can tell from our introduction, we want
> to get rid of the lesser-of-2-evils problem, minimize or eliminate the
> need for drastic defensive strategy. Therefore it shouldn't surprise
> anyone if we have critreria about that. Participation isn't about that.
> So it shouldn't surprise anyone if we don't list Participation.

> Nowhere do we claim that our website is a survey article listing all
> the criteria that are proposed.

> And it also shouldn't surprise anyone if the we recommend methods that
> do well by the criteria and standards that we consider important.

Well said.

I think putting a disclaimer like that somewhere at the bottom of the page
(in small print if you like :) would go a long way toward making some of
your critics happy.  (Yes, I realize it's in the introduction, but it
helps to make it explicit.)

I for one tend to trust analyses that acknowledge their particular bias
(and we all have them) more than ones that don't.  People that share your
stated motivations will feel better realizing *why* the list of criteria
is incomplete, and people that don't share your views won't really have
much room for complaint, since you lay your cards right out on the table.

-Bill Clark

-- 
Dennis Kucinich for President in 2004
http://kucinich.us/