[EM] Credentials

[Richard Fobes]

Mike Ossipoff ~

In order to move your signature into the list of signatures with 
credentials (from the signature category it's in now), Jameson and I 
need you to specify your signature in the very brief format that has 
been used by other credentialed signers.

That information includes an obsfucated (not "machine-readable") email 
address (or some other online contact information), a VERY brief 
indication of your credentials (perhaps something like "co-founder of 
the Election-method forum" or "co-founder of, and long-time participant 
in, the Election-method forum" and/or some other brief credential), and 
a VERY brief comment (perhaps something like "strongly prefers Condorcet 
methods, and prefers Approval ballots over Score ballots" or whatever).

Please look at the signature format to see the specifics:

   http://www.bansinglemarkballots.org/signatures.html

Notice that the format uses semicolons (;) between the "fields." This is 
handy for removing email addresses (such as for the 
BanSingleMarkBallots.org copy), and might prove useful if there is a 
need to put the signatures into a database.

We don't want to compose your signature for you, so we need you to tell 
us what to say (besides your name).

By the way, thank you for co-founding this forum!

Richard Fobes


On 4/6/2012 12:46 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> I read that, if I might have any credentials, for the purpose of my
> Democracy Chronicles answers, then I should post them here:
>
> I'm a longtime participant in this election-methods mailing list.
>
> I was a founding member of this election-methods mailing list.
> In fact, it was I who first proposed the "Single-Winner-Committee" that
> was the basis for this election-methods mailing list.
>
> I can't say what someone else might have proposed sooner somewhere else,
> but, so far as I'm personally aware,
> I was the original proponent and advocate of Condorcet(wv). That's the
> winning-votes variety of Condorcet, in which the strength
> of a pairwise defeat is measured by the number of voters ranking the
> defeater over the defeated, for that pairwise defeat.
> I pointed out some strategic advantages of this form of Condorcet.
>
> (But I no longer consider Condorcet to be a good proposal for public
> elections, due to its FBC failure. However, it's a fine method
> for electorates, such as some committees, etc., that don't have the
> excessive timidity and over-compromise-proneness of
> our public-elections electorate.)
>
> I've been a longtime advocate of Approval, and I now consider it my
> favorite method, and unquestionably by far the best
> public proposal for voting-system reform.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info