[EM] Discussion procedure

[Michael Ossipoff]

I'd said:

On 4/17/2012 2:54 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>* Richard &/or Jameson (or anyone else too): *>* Can I get the e-mail
address of Adrian at Democracy Chronicles? *>* Mike Ossipoff *
I am not supplying Adrian's direct email address because I have
recommended to him that he get voting-method-related questions answered
through the forum so that statements (both positive and negative) about
voting methods are peer-reviewed.  (This approach applies to me as well.)

[endquote]

Well, if you're sure that the group-review is important enough to veto what
Adrian himself
requested. If it really works as fairly as you described, then I guess I
wouldn't strongly object
 to the procedure that you suggest. You want all
communication to be received by all, so that anyone can immediately correct
any _objective
and verifiable_  mis-statement that they find in what someone else says. I
trust that, when reviewing
articles, the objections and expressed disagreements will be about
verifiable objective matters of
fact, rather than EM's usual bickering about personal opinions and
preferences, and personal judgements and estimates about
unpredictable matters. We get a lot of that on EM, and it's difficult to
imagine sthere being another kind of discussion here.

About the review: I trust that we're talking about open discussion among,
at least, everyone involved. I don't object to
open discussion.

You continued:

I suggest being patient...

[endquote]

??? Whoa there. I merely naively asked for the e-mail address that
was requested, by its owner, to be made available. I didn't express any
impatience. I didn't have prior knowledge of your format plans. And no, I'm
not arguing or complaining about your policy. Just pointing out that there
was no reason to perceive impatience.

You continued:

and waiting for their article about the
Declaration to appear, and hopefully shortly after that time (if not
sooner) Adrian may have signed up to join this forum.

Keep in mind, as already conveyed in Adrian's message that I posted
here, there will be a series of articles about each of the experts who
answered his interview questions, spaced about one week apart.

[endquote]

Yes, that was explained in his e-mail.. The general article on the
declaration
will be first, then the individual articles, at intervals of up to roughly
a week.

It's encouraging that Democracy Chronicles is going to publish a series of
articles on better voting systems.
Plurality is disastrously bad for democracy.

There's far too much infighting among advocates of alternative voting
systems. Statements can be made, and
justified. A few questions can be asked and answered. All with a rule about
strict verifiability.

Discussion that lists method properties needn't get...like it usually gets
on EM. People just state properties, and
agree on what they can about them.

I don't deny that, by some considerations, ICT has advantages over
Approval, for instance. But I tell why
I claim that Approval is more enactable, and why its more obvious FBC
compliance would be more reassuring
to voters

Mike Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120419/7b42a47d/attachment-0003.htm>