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

[Richard Fobes]

I did not see this message until after I had added the names of the 
Wikipedia articles.

If we really are trying to get people to use our supported election 
methods then we cannot send them to academic journals or even 
general-audience books because the expected convention is to find 
information online.

Another option is to provide one online location for each of the four 
supported methods.  You could supply a website you like for your 
preferred method.  The most appropriate choice for the Condorcet methods 
is the "Condorcet method" Wikipedia article.

Richard Fobes


On 8/29/2011 6:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> I have made some further changes to the statement
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US>,
> mostly to clarify the advantages and to speak of how this issue spans
> the political spectrum; you may see them by looking at the doc.
>
> Currently, I think that the weakest point of the statement is the
> exhortation to look things up on Wikipedia. I suggest giving a
> bibliography, and saying that "we do not endorse everything in every
> paper or book cited in our bibliography, and in particular we do not
> believe that any negative statement about the systems we have mentioned
> should be construed to imply that the system criticized is worse than
> plurality overall." The bibliography can include some Wikipedia
> articles, including "voting system", but it should also include
> important scholarly articles, whether published in peer-reviewed
> journals or not.
>
> JQ
>