[EM] Wikipedia

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 01:02:23 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:

> Thinking about this some more and based on a private comment from James, 
> I think the only natural division that might actually garner general 
> agreement is to have a single division...multi-winner and single-winner 
> methods.
> 

Certainly multi- vs single- winner makes sense.

In single I see:
      Plurality - just because it is used so much.
      Rankings - IRV AND Condorcet - hopefully nothing else.  For 
Condorcet, first describe basic counting.  Then go into the complications 
(mostly resolving cycles?).
      Ratings.
      Approval - seems different enough from Plurality to list separately.
      Reruns seem like deserving a separate discussion - original voting 
left multiple near ties, so need a second election to resolve.

Primaries got mentioned, and I did not like what I read.  They might do 
any method, though it should be one voters are familiar with.  Purpose is 
to complete the nomination process for a party.  Writeins are normally 
permitted.  Voting may or may not be restricted to party members (I LIKE 
restricted, but I do not get to be czar).


> Allow things like whether a method is one-vote or multi-vote, what the 
> ballot style is, etc. to be left to the pages for the individual methods 
> themselves.
---------------------------------------

Based on Mike's words, I repeat my recommendation that some control is needed.

Perhaps one place where anyone can write - but overwriting banned or prevented.
     Then a second place where only what is agreed on gets stored (perhaps 
multiple versions side by side when agreement does not exist.

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.