SWC's original task

[Mike Ossipoff]

I second Steve's voting proposal. Unless someone objects, that means
that two are in favor of Steve's proposal, and no one is against.
Surely we'd all agree that the motion carries in that case.

Steve's syntax proposal is a separate one. I second that one too,
with the understanding that the syntax symbols could either be added
as we write our messages, or someone could voluteer to add them afterwards.
This issue could be debabated simultanous with our voting on standards,
& our evaluation of methods by the standards. Of course if there's objection
to the syntax proposal then a vote is needed, which could also be done
simultaneous with the vote on standards & the subsequent evaluation of
methods by the standards.

***

Though I believe that we could do better than Approval, and it doesn't
let me express my preferences among all the standards, I believe that
it's crucial that we immediately resume our task, that we vote immediately
on standards.

***

We've already discussed standards a lot, and I believe that we're
ready to vote. Maybe each person who wants should be allowed 1 more
comment on the subject. So here's my comment:

I advocate lesser-of-2-evils as the most important standard. It's
the whole reason why we want better single-winner methods. I recommend
Approving lesser-of-2-evils, & Ossipoff's Generalized Majority Criterion,
which puts lesser-of-2-evils in the form of a criterion.

***

Steve suggested allowing disapproval votes. Since I second Steve's
motion, I also second that part.

***

My vote:

I approve: lesser-of-2-evils; Ossipoff's Generalized Majority Criterion.

I disapprove: Candidate Counting

***

Mike






--