[EM] Some terminology standardization suggestions

[Adam Tarr]

Some of your suggestions I like, but others I don't.  The problem is that 
I'd rather be understood, even if it means I'm not completely universal in 
my terminology.

>"option" instead of "candidate" (because the "candidates" we are talking 
>about need not be people but candidate is usually understood to be a person).

Not always, though... candidate is perfectly universal in this case, and 
more accessible to the layman, to boot.  Just because it has some 
connotations doesn't make it a bad word.

(By the way, you should read the essay "politics and the English language", 
by George Orwell.  Google it.)

>"contest" instead of "election" (because a real world election often 
>consists of more than one contest).

Err... isn't this mailing list called "election methods"?  Real-world 
ballots often serve to elect more than one position, but I don't see how 
that's relevant.

>Multi-winner contests consist of one or more rounds where one or more 
>options are selected each round.

I think combining multiple-winner and multiple-round into one term is 
confusing.  Some multi-winner elections are multiple round, others are not, 
and vice versa.

>The winner(s) for each round is(are) that round's "result" (not "outcome" 
>because we have not yet reached that point).  An "election" consists of 
>one or more contests and an  "election event" consists of one or more 
>elections.  The winner(s) of a contest comprise that contest's "outcome" 
>(not "result" because we are past that point already).

I like that one, although using "result" for a one-round election can't 
cause any confusion.

>A "competition" or "pair competition" is the comparison of voter's 
>preferences between two options (or however many comparisons the 
>particular method at issue focuses on) in a contest.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.  Could you give an example?

>"winning magnitudes" or just "magnitudes" as shorthand when addressing 
>knowledgeable election method gurus instead of "winning votes" (to be 
>consistent with the alternative "margins").

What if I don't want to be consistent with that alternative?

>Also, to continue with this fun, "ree" instead of "he/she", "rees" instead 
>if "his/hers", "erm" instead of "him/her" and (therefore "ermself" instead 
>of "himself/herself").

No.  It is better to be un-PC, then to be un-understood.  I use he/she when 
I think it won't make the sentence too tortured, and I use one or the other 
when I think it will.  Good enough for me.