[EM] Voting reform statement

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Aug 15, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:

> 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.
> 

The statement says, in effect, "Range is good, IRV is bad". I disagree. 

Perhaps I'm the only one, in which case it's inconsequential that I'm not aboard.

(What Schulze are we talking about? I associate the name with a Condorcet-cycle-breaking method.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110815/e0f24cae/attachment-0004.htm>