[EM] Voting reform statement - method of consensus drafting

[Jameson Quinn]

I appreciate the idea, and I think it has promise. Having just logged in and
"patched" my statement to equal yours, though, I think that the process is
still too complicated for a not-explicitly-techie audience. For instance,
even I (a relatively savvy guy; for instance, a regular user of git and
github) can't figure out how to vote for "my" own version. And besides the
generally-easier interface, google docs has wysiwyg, and comments.

So, I'm really sorry, I know that there's a lot of work there, and if it
worked out, the idea of putting diffs into emails is a good one... but I'm
going to have to say, I still consider the Google Docs
version<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US>as
the official one. I've put your suggested changes in there.

We can also copy from the google docs "view history" to paste diffs here.
For instance, the first of your suggested changes:

The study of voting systems has made significant progress over the last
decade
, and our understanding is even farther beyond what it was 20 years ago. One
important place where that has happened is on the election methods mailing
list.


I understand that that will not fully work for those with text-only email,
and does not provide a url with patch buttons. So I still think that when
you smooth out the interface, your system will be better than Google Docs in
important ways. But...

Sorry,
Jameson

2011/8/17 Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com>

> Jameson Quinn wrote:
> > I've made this draft statement into a google doc ... Probably we
> > should continue to discuss here for a while longer, but feel free to
> > also make suggested changes over there...
>
> I want to suggest an alternative method of drafting, one that might
> integrate better with the discussion.  Here's a brief demo:
>
> fsimmons at pcc.edu wrote:
> > Put Approval Voting here in alphabetical order...
> >
> > > - Various *Bucklin* or median-based systems such as *Majority
> > > Judgment* - Various *Condorcet* systems, including
> > > *Condorcet//Approval, various
> > > Condorcet//IRV hybrids, Ranked Pairs, *and* Schulze*.
> > > - *Range Voting* (aka Score Voting)
> > > - *SODA voting*
>
> I agree with Forest and I made the recommended change.  What do you
> think Jameson?
>
>  http://zelea.com:8080/v/w/D?a=4637&b=4627#_3.1
>
> [demo off] Here I propose several modifications to Jameson's draft.
> These take the form of a composite "text diff" that shows the
> differences between his draft and mine, including the particular one I
> refer to (3.1).  This method is based on multiple drafts, one per
> drafter.  Some of the advantages:
>
>  * Embedding a difference URL in the mailing list helps to focus the
>    discussion.  At every step the issue boils down to differences of
>    text, so it can only help to make those differences concrete.
>
>  * The discussion remains rooted in the mailing list.  It need not be
>    transplanted to another medium, such as Google Docs or wiki talk
>    pages.
>
>  * If the discussion leads to agreement, or if the difference happens
>    to be trivial, then it can be eliminated by pressing the "Patch"
>    button.  This is pretty easy to do (and kind of fun).
>
>  * Or, if agreement fails, then the difference remains standing.  It
>    never gets swept aside by the process or buried in the archives,
>    but remains as a qualification of any consensus that emerges.
>
> The software isn't beta ready yet, so I doubt anyone will jump in and
> start using it full time.  But I do hope a few intelligent people will
> play with it and get some ideas.  Here's how to use it:
>
>  1. Visit one of the drafts, such as:
>    http://zelea.com/w/User:Jameson.quinn-GmailCom/G/p/vrs
>
>  2. Click on "My position".
>
>    That gives you a draft of your own.  Login under an alias if you
>    prefer.  It requires no account.
>
>  3. Go to anybody's draft and click "Diff vs. mine".
>
>    That gives you the full diff.  Use the Patch button to get an
>    initial text.
>
>  4. Edit the text, do another diff and post the URL for discussion.
>
> I had hoped to set this up in the Electorama wiki, but its API isn't
> functioning.  I left some edits there, and will clean up later.
>
> Please let me know if you encounter any problems, or have questions.
> Overall, doesn't this approach make sense?
>
> --
> Michael Allan
>
> Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> http://zelea.com/
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110817/996bb8c2/attachment-0003.htm>