[EM] Code of Honor for Reform Acivists:

[Donald Davison]

Code of Honor for Reform Acivists:  by Donald Davison

  * Any group of reform activists that are thinking about a petition drive
to place a proposal on the ballot are to present their proposal beforehand
to all other reform activists that they know of.  The time for debate and
negative comments is before the petition stage.  Once the group makes its
final proposal and enters the petition stage, the debates and negative
comments by all reform activists is to cease.

  * At this time each activist is to make an honest evaluation.  If the
initiative will improve government then each activist is to find it in his
heart to support the initiative, even if it is not exactly what the
activist would like.


Donald here:  The above code is something I wrote and posted to this list
years ago.  I carried the code on my web site for some years until I took
it off for some reason.  Now seems like a good time to bring it back, in
light of James Green-Armytage's post titled `IRV vs Plurality' (Sun, 03 Aug
2003).

The most important part of James' post is the last part (copy below).  Read
it again for the first time.

For myself, while I prefer Irving, if a reform group in my jurisdiction
were to mount a petition drive to install Approval or Condorcet, I would do
the following:

  * I would sign their petition.
  * I would collect signatures.
  * I would tell everyone that the proposal is an improvement.
  * I would encourage everyone to vote for it.
  * I would vote for it.


So, it follows that my code of honor should contain this addition:

  * Every reform activist is to sign their petition, collect signatures,
tell everone that the proposal is an improvement, encourage everyone to
vote for it, and to vote for it themselves.


Regards, Donald Davison

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Best Part of James Green-Armytage's post of Sun 03 Aug 2003:

        In general, I think that it is very counter-productive for advocates of
Condorcet and Approval to spend their efforts trying to block attempts to
implement IRV.  It seems obvious that their effort would be better spent
trying to implement their own favorite system, rather than defending
plurality against IRV.
        This is a very big country, and there are lots of people who use voting
to decide things, and most of those people are still using plurality.  Use
of IRV hardly means blocking Condorcet. 99% of the time, it means
overturning plurality or two round runoff.
        Perhaps when we are deciding on which method to use to elect the
president, this will no longer be the case, but we are quite a long way
off that point, and for now the field is wide open.
        It seems to me that there is tons of room for people to implement IRV in
some places, Condorcet in others, Approval in others, and still more
systems in others.  Not only is this the most cooperative approach for the
movement to take, it is also the one that provides for the most feedback.
That is, if many groups are using each of the different methods, then
voting methods organizers will be able to track the results and see how
the different methods are working under different circumstances, and this
will enrich the theoretical debate immensely.


CONCLUSION

        I have presented some of my opinions here. Although I am uncertain about
some things, I feel fairly sure about others. I am fairly sure that IRV is
technically better than plurality.  I am fairly sure that IRV, Condorcet,
and Approval people should try to treat each other as allies rather than
competitors, and that they should not try to strawman or exclude each
others' systems.
        I think that the voting methods movement will be healthier given a
pluralistic, multi-system approach, that is one in which different
alternative systems are being advocated for and implemented
simultaneously.  I don't think that we should try to close off debate and
resolve on a single system before we begin advocacy.  I think that we
should give people a chance to make intelligent decisions about voting
systems, rather than only letting them know about the system that we like
best.  Of course, if they only ask for one recommendation, then we should
give them the one we prefer.  But if they are interested in the
alternatives, then we should not hide them or give false arguments against
them.
>

Sincerely,
        James