[EM] Executive Summary for Declaration

[Richard Fobes]

On 9/7/2011 10:49 PM, Andy Jennings wrote:
> I do like the executive summary.  Maybe it's a little too long?
>
> I think we could do without the sentence "Some good Condorcet methods
> are:..."
>
> I do think the PR section could be significantly shortened.
>
> I made a few changes.  Feel free to review, roll back, and discuss if
> you think I have erred.
>
> ~ Andy Jennings

Thanks for the feedback about my version of the executive summary. I can 
shorten it if others also like it.

My executive summary has disappeared from the Google Docs document, so 
I'm waiting for more feedback to find out what the "consensus" is. There 
are two other summaries there, but they have not been posted on the forum.

Switching to talking about the declaration itself:

I like the improvements you made!  Thanks!

Removing the names of the "good" Condorcet methods is not acceptable. 
(We can change the word "good" if that's the issue.)

Already we dropped "Condorcet-Tideman" (ranked pairs) from the list 
because Tideman himself prefers Condorcet-IRV (according to what I 
understand from Jameson Quinn).

Originally the statement said that all the supported methods have been 
used to elect officials in organizations, but I had to change that to 
"our four supported methods" because Condorcet-IRV and 
Condorcet-Approval have not been used to elect officials (if I 
understand Jameson Quinn correctly).

Listing specific Condorcet methods is essential. (As an exaggerated 
similarity, imagine expressing support for Bucklin methods and then not 
mentioning Majority Judgement as a specifically supported method.) The 
differences between the Condorcet methods are significant, especially in 
terms of how easy or hard they are to explain. The fact that they 
produce very similar results is just part of the picture.

And we don't want someone taking the words "any of the Condorcet 
methods" literally, choosing an obscure Condorcet method that no one 
really supports, trying to get an organization to adopt it, and then 
having to answer the question "has it ever been used to elect 
officials?" with a "no". We want to fully support what we say we support.

Personally I'd be happy to drop the reference to Condorcet-Approval, but 
I'm assuming that Approval advocates would not approve.

Richard Fobes