[EM] Length of declaration and prospects for consensus

[Michael Allan]

Warren Smith wrote:
> It's very hard to get people to sign statements, and the difficulty
> increases with the length.

My own experience points to a similar conclusion.  I once formulated a
"laconic rule of thumb" (ten words per signature/vote) and a process
of "consensus by erasure".
http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2011-May/001068.html

We could always try again.  The initial focus should be less on
building up a text and more on uncovering agreement over the content.

-- 
Michael Allan

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


Warren Smith wrote:
> this "declaration" is suffering from exactly what everybody
> most-complains about re the rangevoting.org website.
> 
> I.e. it tried to cover everything and got large.  In fact, enormous.
> 
> That for a website is a flaw that is not necessarily an
> insurmountable obstacle
> since one can put short "summary" pages (or try...)  and use of lots
> of hyperlinks, so it isn't just a flat document, it's
> easier to get to information.
> 
> But for a "consensus statement" it is a major problem since (a) nobody
> is going to sign it and (b) nobody is going to read it.
> 
> Well, "nobody" is an exaggeration. But not by much.
> 
> This statement (4328 words) is now over 3 times the length of the
> USA's "Declaration of Independence" (1315 words) and also longer than
> the entire USA constitution (as un-amended) at 4318 words.
> 
> Have you seen my attempt to study what election experts and/or Joe
> Public actually agree on?  The total amount of true consensus out
> there, is extremely small.   So you could have an extremely short
> statement, if you wished to summarize what is the current consensus.
> If you have the more ambitious goal of creating consensus by actually
> changing minds... well, I doubt you can do it with one single
> document.
> 
> It's very hard to get people to sign statements, and the difficulty
> increases with the length.