[EM] Structured messages; Electoral standards (was Re: Where to conve

Steve Eppley seppley at alumni.caltech.edu
Sat Mar 2 21:48:52 PST 1996

Mike wrote:
>Shall we start beginning our SW letters with a table-of-contents
>& a summary (maybe combined with the table-of-contents), & keywords?
>And a numbered subheading structure to match the table of contents?

Imho, this is better than no structure, but not as good as working
out an outline whose structure will be reflected in our messages'

Same opinion on non-SingleWinner messages.

>Maybe the outline should have a place for standards by which to
>evaluate & compare methods. [snip]

Yes.  I've been thinking about everting the outline I proposed a 
while back, so instead of organizing by electoral method (listing the 
pros and cons of each--how they meet or fail to meet the standards) 
it would be organized by the standards (ranking each electoral 
method according to how well the particular standard is met).  The 
readers would be able to judge which standards they consider most 
important, and see which methods score well there.

Both organizations will be valuable, but I'm not sure whether this 
can be done in one hyperlinked document.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list