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

[Jameson Quinn]

Re: 10 words per signatory.

I don't think I should be the one to judge. What do other people think? If
people like things short, I've suggested an extra 15 or 20 words below.

JQ

2011/8/19 Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com>

> 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:

Plurality has big problems. Any of these would solve most:

>     * Approval
>     * Bucklin
>
/ (Majority Judgment)

>     * Condorcet
>     * Range
>     * SODA
>   Approval is ideal as a first step in voting reform.


Gerrymandering and safe seats are also problems. Proportional representation
would solve it. There are many good options, including some with
geographical aspects, but closed party list is not good.


>
> 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?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110819/54e99a7d/attachment-0004.htm>