[EM] Voting reform statement - new draft, please give opinions

[Jameson Quinn]

At the suggestion of someone who wrote me privately, I have one thing to add
to my message:

2011/8/17 Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>

> I have done a significant rewrite to the voting reform statement on Google
> Docs<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US>.
> The new draft is pasted below. Please, go to the doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US>,
> make any comments or suggestions<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US>,
> and write your tentative "signature" (just name, spamproofed contact, and
> credentials for now) at the bottom. Even if you can't sign on to the
> statement<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US>in its current form, you can say
> what changes you'd want<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US>before signing. (Yes, all those links go to the same place. Subtle, no?)
>
> The significant changes to this draft are:
>
> * Does not talk about the EM list. I hope to get signatures from off-list
> academics, *and you can help*.
> * Does not discuss single-winner criteria, except to say that plurality
> generally does poorly on all of them.
> * Does not state that we agree that IRV is worse than the systems listed,
> simply that some find it better than plurality and some do not.
> * Includes a section on PR.
>
> The new draft is below *in my previous message*.  Again, your direct edits
> and suggestions are welcome<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US>
> .


The first three changes were not my ideas, but rather suggestions from
someone else. My point is: you can participate in this effort. I will
happily continue to push for a joint statement, even if it morphs into
something very different from what I originally wrote.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110818/f305c490/attachment-0003.htm>