[EM] Voting reform statement; a clearer and more inspiring version

[Richard Fobes]

I like the idea (from Jameson Quinn) of allowing our signature-line 
preferences to include methods that are not mentioned in the formal 
statement.  (I had suggested only allowing the names of methods that are 
formally supported.)

To prevent these expressed preferences from becoming too long, I suggest 
limiting them to 100 characters (including the word "prefers").

I'm not as enthusiastic about the idea of including an "exemplary list" 
in the declaration based on how many signatures express preference for a 
specific method.  That's because, as we know, it's easy to "stuff the 
ballot box", including by getting signatures from "experts" who aren't 
really election-method experts.  As it is, supporters of each election 
method will try to get fellow supporters to sign, in hopes of making it 
appear that their method is more popular than other election methods.

Richard Fobes


On 8/25/2011 4:35 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>
> 2011/8/25 Peter Zbornik <pzbornik at gmail.com <mailto:pzbornik at gmail.com>>
>
>     Dear all,
>     please consider including a list of endorsed election methods for
>     proportional elections, just as you have done for single winner
>     elections. Otherwise the bold statement will just cover one special
>     case in election theory - single winner elections.
>
>
> The statement does address proportional methods. Essentially, it
> endorses any non-closed-list system. The problem with including a list
> is that there are too many good options. I was afraid that even if we
> explicitly stated that the list was only meant to be exemplary, not
> exhaustive, it would be an invitation for potential statement signers to
> battle over what should be included.
>
> So, how about this: when you state your intention to sign, you can
> mention one or two PR systems, and any systems which get mentioned twice
> or more will be on the exemplary list.
>
> JQ
>
>     Furthermore you might consider covering the issues of
>     (i) proportional rank orders. For instance when electing the party
>     list in primaries, in countries where closed lists are used.
>     (ii) proportional rank orders to elect a hierarchy of functions
>     proportionally, like board president, vice presidents and other
>     board members.
>     Best regards
>     Peter Zborník
>