[EM] Declaration wording refinement

[Dave Ketchum]

I like the label "Advocates" since, while being an enthused backer, I  
do not want to start a debate as to whether I qualify as an expert.

What brings us here is strong agreement that Plurality voting  
ABSOLUTELY should NOT  be backed for serious use in our elections.   
While in many elections many voters desire nothing beyond Plurality's  
ability to vote for a single candidate, there is often a desire to  
vote for more than one candidate, with the voter able to indicate  
equal desire for or unequal desire for those the voter chooses to back.

While the desire to change brings us together, we do not agree as to  
the best destination to change to, and agree to leave agreeing as to  
destination to our future, though we can agree as to some details:

.     We certainly leave the Plurality weakness that got us together  
in our past.

.     We reject weaknesses (such as IRV's willingness to ignore much  
of the ranking, thus ignoring true desires).
      (I  apologize, wanting to submit this, yet being unable to do  
better tonight.  The voting patterns that result in IRV and similar  
methods ignoring voters' true desires via incomplete counting of votes  
should cause rejection of such methods.  Burlington was an example of  
IRV failing to read true voter desires.)

Dave Ketchum

On Oct 12, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:

> 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.