[EM] Meta-criteria 9 of 9: Conclusion

[Michael Allan]

Jameson Quinn wrote:
> ... I also hope that I start more than one productive discussion -
> productive enough to change my mind about some aspects of what I
> said.  My ultimate hope is that this kind of discussion will help us
> have the perspective to recognize, to design, to evaluate, and
> finally to begin to agree on the best possible voting systems. The
> more big-picture perspective we have and share, the more we will
> become an activist force with which nations must reckon.

You propose a far-reaching critique of voting practice.  I agree this
is needed.  But if a critique is to be far reaching, then it must also
(you will agree) be broadly and firmly grounded.

You propose a number of evaluative criteria in 8 separate threads.
Where do these criteria come from?  Are they part of a body of voting
theory?  How broadly and firmly grounded is that theory?  (A critique
of theory may precede that of practice, if you allow.)

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/