IRO, monotonicity

Mike Ositoff ntk at
Sun Nov 1 23:25:37 PST 1998

> > subject. Continued in subsequent message.
> Ouch. Do you think there would be more of an advantage to this list if we
> had some journal-style arm which would incorporate whole articles and be
> committee-mediated? I'm not casting aspersions upon current postings'

It wouldn't be open discussion then. Open discussion is the
advantage that these lists have over the academic journals

> objectivity or scientific nous; I'm just finding it very difficult to
> handle what are often discontinuous arguments and it would be appreciated

My arguments have been discontinuous because my shell-account
e-mail is, on some evenings, repeatedly & often disrupted by
line-noise, making it necessary, on those evenings, to keep
my messages very short, because otherwise I won't finish
before the noise freezes the keyboard.

> if there was some extensive and well-argued investigation of each members'
> interests and research. The "election-methods-journal" might be a group

Of course it's a good thing if people presenting arguments or
making claims or proposals explain their interests & goals.

Research, I don't know. This isn't science. My conversations with
other voters are research, and it has led me to want to get
rid of the LO2E problem that all progressives are dominated
& driven by. That's my interest in single-winner reform.

> mediated message board somewhere, or even on "e-groups."
> It might get the Mike's deluded little "academic authors" to pay 
> attention...

I don't know if I'd say "deluded", but certainly oblivious
to the concerns of actual voters. In fact if they made it
clear that their proposals & discussions were only about
voting on committees at their universities, I'd have no reason
to criticize them. My objection is that some make suggestions
about public voting proposals, with no interest in voters' concerns.



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list