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

[Michael Allan]

One possible obstacle to participation (and to agreement) is the sheer
size of the text.  I once formulated a "laconic rule of thumb" to
address this kind of problem.  It states: [1]

   Limit the consensus draft to 10 words per voter [or signatory].

In our case, and depending on how we tallied the level of agreement,
that would mean 20 or 30 words maximum.  I recommend: [2]

   These are better than Plurality:
     * Approval
     * Bucklin
     * Condorcet
     * Range
     * SODA
   Approval is ideal as a first step in voting reform.

That's 20 words.  It leaves no room for elaboration or qualification.
But if someone else wants to sign on, then he can bring up to 10
additional words along with his signature.

What do you think?  Is this a reasonable approach?


 [1] http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2011-May/001068.html

 [2] I couldn't resist putting it in the wiki and generating the
     difference: http://zelea.com:8080/v/w/D?a=4639&b=4638

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Jameson Quinn wrote:
> 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