[EM] Declaration wording refinement

[Richard Fobes]

To:  Kristofer Munsterhjelm

I believe that you imply, in your message copied below, that you like 
the following words in the older version of the recently edited 
paragraph (of the Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates):

"... we would not hesitate to support any of these methods over 
plurality voting"

Unfortunately it is becoming clear that the words "support" and "any" 
are problematic.

Does "support" mean just being willing to vote for any one of them if a 
referendum is offered?  Or does it mean that every time one of us 
advocates the adoption of our favorite method that we must also mention, 
and express support for, all the other declaration-supported methods? 
And if one of us supports a non-favorite method in some circumstances 
but not in other circumstances, would our commitment to the declaration 
be violated if we expressed opposition to that non-favorite method being 
adopted in a situation for which we think is not appropriate?

Very significantly, does signing the declaration mean that none of us 
can collect signatures for a different declaration that supports only 
our favorite method?  This issue already arose when Warren Smith posted 
a petition expressing support for range voting, with added support for 
an additional method (Approval?), without mentioning Condorcet methods. 
  I think that such actions should not be disallowed.

Although I too would like to express strong cooperation among 
election-method experts, I think it is more important that our 
signatures represent solid backing for every sentence in the declaration 
(except perhaps the sentences in the method-specific "advantage" 
paragraphs, which are clearly qualified as being from each method's 
advocates).

Looking farther into the future, I presume we will be getting signatures 
from non-experts, and I think we can get more signatures if we do not 
try to falsely imply unity that isn't really among us, and isn't among 
the non-experts (especially keeping in mind that IRV advocates may want 
to sign it).

Our real purpose, as I see it, is to express opposition against 
plurality voting and single-mark ballots, and do so based on our 
credibility as expert mathematicians (and social-choice experts, etc.). 
  That is what "on-the-ground" and "in-the-streets" election-method 
reform advocates -- the ones who are willing to attract media attention 
and take leadership roles for such reforms -- need as ammunition in 
their fight against plurality voting.  Remember that they, not we, will 
be choosing which election methods will become adopted, and where.

If there is additional support from other election-method experts for 
the previous/older wording, then we may be able to find a compromise 
wording.  Otherwise I think we need to keep the new wording.  Yet, as 
I've expressed before, we are striving to reach consensus, so at this 
point we have just two votes from Jameson Quinn and I for the new 
wording and one vote for the older wording.  This ballot box is still 
open for further opinions.

Richard Fobes


On 10/11/2011 8:55 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> Richard Fobes wrote:
>
>> If you have already signed the declaration and do not like the new
>> wording, please say so. If necessary we can remove your signature, but
>> hopefully we can resolve any objection (which is likely to be an issue
>> for others as well). If you like the new wording and have already
>> signed, no reply is needed.
>>
>> If this wording refinement is now enticing you to sign this
>> declaration, please supply your signature in the previously shown
>> format. (A semicolon separates the signature into: name; contact info
>> (non-software-collectible); credentials; election-method preference)
>
> I would prefer the previous version, because it states outright that we
> prefer each other's advanced methods to Plurality, which I think is the
> case. I don't know about the opinions of the others, but in my opinion,
> Plurality is a pretty low bar to clear. Of the "realistic" methods (e.g.
> not things like Antiplurality, whoever-comes-last-wins, etc), the only
> ones where I'd be cautious to say I prefer them over plurality would be
> IRV and Borda.
>
> I would still sign the new version, but I think that if we can agree to
> support each other's methods against Plurality, the declaration will be
> stronger for it.
>
>
>