[EM] Glossary 3/25/96

[Steve Eppley]

[Am I on the right track with this keyphrase faq?  If you think so, 
there are a lot of keyphrases which need to be massaged from old 
messages into this, so please lend a hand.  If you object to my 
choices for keyphrases, please speak up soon before we begin using 
them heavily.]

process   We maintain this faq which lists acceptable keyphrases:
             submit newly coined keyphrases to faq maintainer(s);
             submit brief comments to define keyphrases.
process   We mark arguments in our messages using these keyphrases.
process   We rank standards and methods at conclusion of process.
process   We explain our rankings in document.
process   Use separate rankings for Presidential elections than 
             other sw elections?


standard  Affordability
   Weinert
standard  Centrism
   Saumur
standard  Coalition Necessary
   Eppley: (see Reward Organizers)
standard  Coalition Unnecessary
   Eppley: form coalitions around issues, not elections
standard  Decisiveness
   Shugart
+   Eppley: sweep circular preference situation under the carpet
standard  Economic Feasibility
   Eppley
standard  False Mandate
   Eppley: (see Voter Expression, Decisiveness)
   Eppley: don't sweep circular preference situation under the carpet
standard  Fratricide
   Eppley: candidates can run without spoiling
standard  Lesser-of-Evils
   Ossipoff: eliminate voters' dilemma
standard  Level Field
   Eppley: shouldn't favor any candidates (see Proportionality)
standard  Leverage Popularity
+   (see preferred term: Reward Organizers)
standard  Majority Approval
   Demorep1
standard  Majority Rule
   Ossipoff:
+standard  Majority Rule Generalized
+   Ossipoff: like Majority Rule; adds the ability of a majority 
+             to defeat an undesirable 3/24/96
standard  Media Coverage
   Eppley: Media ignores choices which don't have a chance to win
standard  Minority Rights
   Eppley
standard  More Voter Choices
   Eppley: let them choose between similar proposals/parties/candidates
           so the movements don't have to guess which one to offer
+standard  No Defensive Strategy
+   Ossipoff 3/24/96
+standard  Preferences are Counted
+   Ossipoff
standard  Proportionality
   Eppley
standard  Public Satisfaction
   Eppley
standard  Responsiveness
   Eppley: follow the will of the people (short terms?)
+standard  Reward Organizers
+   Weinert:
+    >the system gives greater advantage to those who are able
+    >to build associations and networks of people (as expressed
+    >by the number of people giving time, money, and other
+    >resources) over those who are purely candidates of "ideas"
+    >or who can "buy friends" or "buy ideas".
standard  Simplicity
   Shugart
standard  Statesmanship
   Saumur
standard  Technological Feasibility
   Eppley
standard  UnLeverage Money
   Weinert
standard  Viability of Compromise
   Ossipoff: Clinton should be electable
standard  Voter Deliberation
   Lanphier
standard  Voter Expression
   Eppley: let the voters express their true will
standard  Voter Participation
   Eppley, Weinert
standard  Tactics-Defensive
   Ossipoff: eliminate need for defensive voter tactics
   Eppley: fewer dilemma headaches
standard  Tactics-Offensive
   Ossipoff: reduce reward for offensive voter tactics
standard  Whim Nonresponsiveness
   Eppley


method    Plurality
method    Runoff
method    Double Complement
method    Approval
method    MPV
method    Pairwise          (aka Condorcet)
method    Copeland
method    NOTB              (aka Condorcet+NOTB)
method    Disapproval       (aka Condorcet+Disapproval)
method    Rating            (aka Weighted)
       - - -
method    Election/Inauguration Gap
method    Term Truncation   (of disapproved winner)


argument  allows unpopular winner
argument  voting favorite is risk-free
argument  expression suppression
argument  expensive re-election
argument  lame duck
argument  ranked ballot (re: Voter Deliberation)
argument  vote-for-one  (re: Voter Deliberation
argument  specialinterest $ wasted on losers
argument  chaos
argument  undermine reform movement
argument  neutrality
argument  proportionality

----------------------------------------------------------------
Keyphrase Marking syntax:
[rebut] [pro | con]   {{<standard>  {{<method> ...    {{<argument>

Some examples showing how to use keyphrase markings in messages:

def {{Majority Rule
new: Majority Rule

con {{Majority Rule {{Plurality {{allows unpopular winner

pro {{Lesser-of-Evils {{MPV {{Condorcet {{Rating
       {{voting favorite is risk-free

rebut pro {{Lesser-of-Evils {{MPV {{Rating
       {{voting favorite is NOT risk-free