[EM] <process> Brief replies

Steve Eppley seppley at alumni.caltech.edu
Wed Mar 6 01:09:12 PST 1996

Mike O. wrote:
>2. Purpose & method of voting on standards:
>Approval would be fine with me. But, since it's often difficult to
>get many people to vote, wouldn't it be better to simply order the
>standards based on 1 vote

How will this proposal handle standards which are submitted later?

>3. Standards causally related to other standards:
>Many of the standards are about effects of meeting or not meeting
>other standards. It would pare down our standards list if we
>didn't use these indirect standards. For instance, many of the
>standards, such as encouraging more people to run, are about
>things that are consequences of the lesser-of-2-evils problem,
>the need for defensive strategy.

Good idea.  These can be converted from Standards to Arguments.

>Majority rule could have 2 subheadings:
>3a) Not electing someone to whom a majority prefers someone else
>3b) Not electing someone whom a majority disapprove absolutely
>    (though that's more difficult to define, and more difficult
>      for the voter to judge)

Please suggest keyphrases for the faq. 

At the moment, the envisioned process doesn't facilitate subheadings. 
Can these be separate standards?

>Of course I was only kidding when I said "If disapproval can
>disqualify someone, how would we ever elect Clinton?" I left out
>the :-)

Do you want to suggest a different faq description for the
"Viability of Compromise" standard?  Do you want this standard
dropped, or converted to argument?


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list