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

[Michael Allan]

Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> And re the word count: I think it's important to list the criteria
> by which plurality has "big problems" and approval et al "solve"
> most of them, instead of making the naked claim.

If you were to formally sign on, then we'd have an additional 10 words
to qualify the claims.  The fear otherwise is that adding to the text
would only raise obstacles to participation and agreement; wheras
omissions are more neutral in effect, or even attractive.

-- 
Michael Allan

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


Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2011, at 9:22 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> I'm not a fan of closed lists, but I wonder if their condemnation qualifies as an electoral-method topic. What drives closed lists is the desire for strong parties and party discipline. One might disagree philosophically, but that doesn't make it a bad electoral method if that's the goal. Seems to me the question then becomes how the list gets generated. Suppose, for example, that a party held a ranked-vote primary that used the Condorcet preference ranking of the candidates to create a list. 
> 
> And re the word count: I think it's important to list the criteria by which plurality has "big problems" and approval et al "solve" most of them, instead of making the naked claim.