[EM] Executive Summary for Declaration

[Stéphane Rouillon]

  When and where will the declaration be published?

On 2011-09-08 00:25, Richard Fobes wrote:
> On 9/7/2011 2:09 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote:
> > I still think the 12 page declaration (incl table of contents) needs an
> > executive summary. The table of contents does not in my honest opinion
> > give good enough information.
>
>
> I agree that the declaration needs an executive summary.  Here is what 
> I've come up with as a first draft:
>
> ----- Executive Summary -----
>
> This declaration, which has been signed by election-method experts 
> from around the world, publicly denounces the use of plurality voting 
> in governmental elections.  Plurality voting mistakenly assumes that 
> the candidate who receives the most ballot marks – on single-mark 
> ballots – is the most popular.  Plurality voting also suffers from 
> vote splitting, which is what forces political parties to offer only a 
> single choice in each election.
>
> As replacements for plurality voting, this declaration recommends four 
> significantly fairer election methods, namely, in alphabetical order: 
> Approval voting, any Condorcet method, Majority Judgment voting, and 
> Range voting.  These methods use better ballots – namely the Approval 
> ballot, Ranked ballot, and Score ballot – to collect much more 
> preference information compared to plurality's primitive single-mark 
> ballot.
>
> The lack of awareness about plurality voting's unfairness arises from 
> its use of single-mark ballots, which not only fail to collect enough 
> information to correctly identify the most popular candidate, but also 
> fail to collect enough information to produce proof or evidence of the 
> unfair results.
>
> Computer technology now makes it easy to count better ballots and 
> correctly identify who deserves to win.  All the supported methods are 
> based on the fact that a majority of voters, not just a plurality of 
> voters, must approve or prefer the winning candidate in order to 
> produce fairer results.
>
> In spite of the academically recognized, well-known unfairness of 
> plurality voting, it is used throughout Canada, the United Kingdom, 
> the United States, and to some extent nearly every democracy around 
> the world.  As a consequence of adopting fairer election methods, this 
> declaration's signers expect the benefits to include a dramatically 
> reduced gap between voters and government, more easily -- and fairly 
> -- resolved political conflicts, and significantly increased economic 
> prosperity for any region that adopts fairer election methods.
>
> Significantly the election-method experts do not support the use of 
> instant-runoff voting, which is also known as the alternative vote. 
> This method is based on the mistaken belief that the candidate with 
> the fewest plurality votes is the least popular candidate.
>
> The four supported methods also can be adopted for use in 
> non-governmental situations, such as electing an organization's 
> officers, making democratic decisions, and electing corporate board 
> members.
>
> The signers of this declaration do not share any common political 
> beliefs, and are confident that the recommended election reforms will 
> not favor any particular political parties or political orientations. 
> Their clearly stated goal is to improve election fairness by replacing 
> primitive plurality voting with any of the fairer supported methods. 
> Their expectation is that a higher level of democracy will lead to 
> higher standards of living, reduced conflicts, and widespread greater 
> economic prosperity, just as replacing monarchies and dictatorships 
> with plurality voting has produced dramatic and widespread benefits.
>
> The signers urge everyone to learn more about how voting should be 
> done – using Approval voting, Condorcet methods, Majority Judgment 
> voting, or Range voting – and begin adopting the supported voting 
> methods in whatever situations currently, yet inappropriately, use 
> plurality voting.
>
> ----- end -----
>
> It mentions some concepts that currently aren't in the declaration 
> itself, so if this executive summary is liked, adjustments will need 
> to be made in either this summary or in the declaration.
>
> Also note that this summary does not mention PR. We still need to 
> decide what to do about that section. It is long yet just says we like 
> PR but oppose closed-list PR.
>
> Richard Fobes
>
>
> On 9/7/2011 2:09 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote:
>> Dear Jameson,
>>
>> I still think the 12 page declaration (incl table of contents) needs an
>> executive summary. The table of contents does not in my honest oppinion
>> give good enough information.
>>
>> An executive summary is standard when writing policy recommendations
>> like this, and you cannot write a scientific paper without an abstract.
>>
>> On the other hand I understand, that writing summaries and abstracts is
>> sometimes a pain (it is at least to me), and that it is easier to point
>> out things that could be improved and more difficult to do something
>> about it, like writing the summary myself.
>>
>> I dont write this just to nag. If you want your recommendations to be
>> read by decision makers, you had better catch the interest within the
>> one or two minutes this person will maximally spend do decide if the
>> declaration is worth reading.
>>
>> It would be a petty, if this iniciative faild to get impact because the
>> lack of a summary.
>>
>> Basically, a summary would give the declaration a wider audience and
>> increase the potential political impact of the declaration.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Peter Zborník
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jameson.quinn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> ...
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info
>
>