[EM] Why Robert's Rules is relevant to this list

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:01 PM 8/7/2005, RLSuter at aol.com wrote:
>Abd ulRahman Lomax writes:
> > In my opinion, however, Robert's Rules is only of
> > peripheral interest on this list.
>
>The discussion during the past week has strengthened my
>view of the relevance of Robert's Rules for this list. To anyone
>who has become minimally well-informed about alternative
>methods for conducting votes when there are three or
>more candidates or options and who looks at Robert's
>Rules to see how such votes are dealt with, it is impossible
>to notice that they are not encouraged and that suggested
>methods for handling such votes if they must be conducted
>are far from adequate in light of current knowledge about
>voting methods.

What this means to me is that voting methods are relevant to Robert's 
Rules; were this a Robert's Rules list, the relevance would be strong and 
clear.

However, this is an Election Methods list, and Robert's Rules and 
parliamentary procedure are examples of the application of voting methods; 
I did not say that RR was irrelevant to this list, but that relevance was 
"peripheral." "Secondary" would have been a better description.

Election Methods are a subset of the general topic of how groups make 
decisions, a topic which is of central concern to me personally, but not 
necessarily to many members of this list.

But this list has no specific relevance rules. If Mr. Suter wants to 
discuss RR here, he is welcome as far as I am concerned. But I will answer 
what he says about RR's position on multi-option votes in another post.