The Meta Election is taking nominations.

[David Catchpole]

On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Charles Fiterman wrote:

> At 03:38 AM 10/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >So I second Fiterman's proposal to hold such an election.
> >
> >If a proposal for an election is made & seconded, doesn't that
> >amount to a good reason for others to vote if they're interested?
> 
> The first step in the meta election is obviously
> deciding to have it. I regard that as taken.
> 
> The second step is everyone nominating any candidates they
> find appropriate and making brief nominating speeches.
> 
> So far candidates are
> 
> Honesty
>   Proven fraud magnets like written ballots and slow 
>   counts are excluded.
> Secrecy
>   You vote in secret. Your community votes in secret.
> Simplicity
>   Its easy to understand the system. Half the voters
>   are below median I.Q. and 10% are in the bottom tenth.
>   You can't exclude them.
> Openness
>   Easy access to the system.
> Convenience
>   In and out quickly.
> Pervasiveness
>   Lots of elective offices.
> Decisiveness
>   The system returns an answer it doesn't demand a run off
>   or another election.
> Participation
>   People are encourged to vote by some mechanism but not at 
>   gun point.
> Accuracy
>   Votes can be balanced several ways.
> The most unpopular candidates lose
>   Being hated is more bad than being loved is good. e.g. if
>   some stand will make 5% of the people hate you and 5% love
>   you it should be a mistake to take that stand.
> The most acceptable candidates win
>   The people with the broadest acceptance win even if they
>   aren't the most loved. They do after all have to run things.
> 
> We are nominating only goals not methods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
I nominate:

1) Voting truthfully will advantage and not disadvantage you (where
possible)

2) It should be hard for any candidates to split the vote