[EM] Voting reform statement

[Jameson Quinn]

>
>
>
> It's true that I might agree to a statement if all it said were "We believe
> that approval is marginally superior to plurality" (thought to the extent
> that I agreed, I don't think it's enough better to merit any energy in
> advocating it). But that's not what you're proposing. Is it?
>
>
No. I'm proposing saying that, in different words, along with a number of
other things with which you haven't disagreed. Including that we believe
that approval is a step towards systems which we see as significantly
superior to plurality. (Remember - just as approval is 2-level Range,
approval is also 2-level Schulze or what have you, and also
no-intercandidate-preference SODA, etc.) So, either propose some specific
change in the language relating to approval, or bring some other objection,
or both.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110815/768330cb/attachment-0003.htm>