[EM] The credentiald signature section
ElectionMethods at VoteFair.org
Tue Apr 10 10:49:58 PDT 2012
Because you are not supplying your brief "signature" in the specified
format, I (and presumably Jameson) must assume that you do not want your
named moved to the credentialed section of the Declaration.
(I don't understand your choice, but I respect your choice.)
If you can contact the people you refer to and get them to sign the
Declaration, that would be great. (Jameson is pursuing the signatures
of additional potential signers.)
On 4/9/2012 2:04 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> Hi Richard--
> A big advantage of being a credentialed signer would be that I'd be
> putting in a word, and a "vote" for Approval. I'd be showing, to other
> voting-system reform advocates that the first wv Condorcetist, someone
> who has been with voting systems since well before EM started,
> is a confirmed, adamant Approvalist. And of course I'd be able to
> include a few brief words about why I like Approval. That should suggest to
> voting system reform advocates that Approval deserves a closer look.
> Of course, the people who would recognize my name, and who to whom my
> credentials would mean something, consist of other voting system
> reform advocates--people who already fully understand the need to
> abolish the single-mark ballot.
> But I understand that the purpose of the declaration isn't to advocate
> for one voting system reform in comparison to the others--It's to make
> people aware that Plurality has got to be replaced with something
> better, if democracy is to be genuine. That means that it's necessary to
> people who are net yet advocates of voting system reform.
> To such people, the fact that I was the first introducer and advocate of
> the popular Condorcet(wv) family of methods, and was the proposer and
> a founding member of EM, might not count for much, because they have yet
> to be convinced that we need a new voting system.
> What such people need, to be impressed, to listen, is some proof of
> accomplishment or recognition _outside_ the voting system reform community.
> I don't hold a degree, or a professional position.
> So, what I'm saying is that I fully understand that my being on the list
> of credentialed signers could, to the general public, dilute and devalue
> credentialed list, by a bit.
> Of course I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to be included in that
> credentialed list. In fact it would help Approval (which I feel is a bit
> slighted in the declaration's discussion
> of advantages). I'm just saying that I fully understand that my being
> mentioned in that list might not be helpful for the purpose of impressing
> members of the general public, showing them that voting system reform is
> advocated by people whose authority they can recognize.
> And this is certainly not about not wanting to give out an e-mail
> address. My contact e-mail, for voting systems, is :
> "nkklrp, followed by the symbol
> that always precedes e-mail domain-names, followed by hotmail, followed
> by period, followed by what typically follows that period, something
> that starts with
> the same letter as the word 'cat'. "
> If I'm not in the credentialed signers list, I'd still be glad to be
> listed in a list of contacts for answering questions, depending on whether
> that is felt to be helpful for the declaration's primary purpose.
> But I'll tell you _who_ should sign: Matthew Lane, a PhD candidate at
> UCLA. He recently published an editorial on CNN, about the desirability
> of, and
> need for, Approval voting. It apparently aired on a Friday, within the
> past few weeks.
> Also, Brams & Fishburn. And Myerson & Weber. And Guy Ottewell (sp?).
> Weber and Ottowell have both been named as the modern
> 1st proponents of Approval (which is known, however, to have been used
> long ago too). Myerson & Weber introduced a "voting equilibrium"
> that many now call Myerson-Weber equilibrium. They showed that, with
> Plurality, the most disliked two parties could continue to win forever,
> at equilibrium. Put very briefly, people vote for one of those 2 parties
> because they're told that they're the only winnable parties. And, sure
> the winner is always one of them, confirming what the media have told
> us. So they keep winning, ad infinitum. One or both of them also discussed
> voting systems' encouragement or discouragement of corruption, the
> influence of money. And an equilibrium for configurations of candidates.
> thereby confirmed someone else's suggestion that Approval will result in
> an equilibrium in which there is at least one candidate at the voter
> And the candidate there will the the winner at voting equilibrium.
> Those people made their main contributions decades ago. I don't know how
> many of them are still alive (except, of course, for Lane).
> How disappointing and embarrassing it would be if all of the people who
> have given us those contributions have died out, and are therefore no longer
> available to help us, before we start to make use of what they introduced.
> Mike Ossipoff
More information about the Election-Methods