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

[Steve Eppley]

Mike O. wrote:
>I agree that's the way to do it--organizing the outline & the
>discussion around standards. That puts the whole thing on solid
>footing, whereas it would otherwise have been difficult to compare
>the methods or know where to start. 
[snip]
>I nominate the standards that I've named in previous letters to
>this list:
>1. Getting rid of the lesser-of-2-evils problem [snip]
>2. Getting rid of the need for defensive strategy [snip]
>3. Majority rule. Same as #2, above.

I think one of the first tasks is to comb through existing documents
and old messages looking for the pros, cons, and standards people
have written about.  We could confine the search to single-winner
methods, but should we?

I agree with Lucien that consideration of the nature of the 
government spawned by the electoral system is relevant too.

Here are a few more standards:
4. Level electoral playing field (see #3)
5. Voter participation
6. Public satisfaction
7. Proportionality (MW- multiwinner elections only)
8. Promote statesmanship (MW)
9. Responsiveness to citizens
10. Nonresponsiveness to majority whims
11. Protection of rights from narrow or transient majority (MW)
12. Technological and economic feasibility of the electoral system
13. Don't need large coalition to win some power. (see #6)
14. Need large coalition to win power (see #7)

We'll be able to add more at any time, but I hope people will help
with this early.

Does it make sense for us to rank the standards, so the outline is
sorted most important first?  Should we rate them Olympic-style, and 
trust that each of us will rate honestly?