[EM] Re: A more briefly-defined method with the best mix of properties

[Araucaria Araucana]

MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp <at> hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> 
> EM members--
> 
> This is a copy of a message that I intend to post at the Condorcet mailing 
> list. I have just finished requesting membership in that mailing list. I 
> don't know how often it takes to be approved for membership, and so I'd like 
> to post, to EM, three messages that I intend to post to the Condorcet 
> mailing list. This is the first of those three messages. They're about MDDA:
> 
> MDDA has been much discussed on EM. Its full name is: Majority Defeat 
> Disqualification//Approval.

 < ... etc. ...>

Hi Mike,

There has been 2 months of debate on the Condorcet list, mostly between Schulze
and DMC.

You're welcome to join the debate (I certainly can't stop you!), but it would be
more helpful if you could assist with comparison of the methods.  After all, the
purpose is to first convince one Washington State representative, and secondly
to give him ammunition to present to the entire legislature.

So instead of doing all your work by email and forcing people to reference each
message and apply differences and additions in their heads, why not create some
pages on electowiki?  For example, here's a place to fill in your method:

     http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Majority_Defeat_Disqualification_Approval

That's where you could describe it in terms of accepted election methods
terminology.  But you might also want to create a page with a version of
Proposed Statutory Rules:

      http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Proposed_Statutory_Rules_for_MDDA

I will even issue a friendly challenge:  See if you can write your rules more
succinctly and intelligibly (for non-mathematical politicians) than the version
I wrote for DMC.

-- monkeypuzzle