[EM] SODA posting with run-on lines (hopefully) fixed.

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Sun Jan 22 20:42:44 PST 2012

Looks like your new system is teaching you properly.

I tried printing with smaller characters - and each line filled out  

I tried making the page wider or narrower - still properly got as many  
words on each line as would fit.

On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:30 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> This is a test, to find out if I can get rid of the run-on lines by  
> re-typing the posting with automatic linebreaks at the right margin  
> instead of using the carriage-return. But does that mean that if I  
> try to make a paragraph division, I'll instead end up with an  
> endless line? Sorry, but I'm having difficulty sending readable e- 
> mail wth my new computer system. Now let's try a paragraph and find  
> out if that works:
> I'm copying the posting here, and will then rewrite it without the  
> carriage-returns. What is sent will be the verion without the  
> carriage-returns.(except for new paragraphs). One problem is that  
> the "zoom" scale keeps changing, which could make nonsense of the  
> automatic linebreaks.
> SODA can be described to someone in a brief way that people accept.  
> In a recent convefrsation, I described SODA, and the person  
> considered it acceptable. You're specifying the rules in too much  
> detail. The initiative street-descrliption needn't be legal  
> language, though that should be available upon request. Likewise,  
> for the computer program of MTAOC, MCAOC and AOC.
> So here's how I described SODA to that person:
> It's like Approval, but, if you vote only for one person, you can  
> optionally check a box indicating that you want that candidate to be  
> able to add approval votes to your ballot on your behalf if s/he  
> doesn't win. S/he will have previously published a ranking of  
> candidates to indicate the order in which s/he would give such  
> designated approvals.
> That's it. That brief descriptionl tells how the method works.
> As I said yesterday, it seems to me that it would be much more  
> publicly-accepable if the default assumption is non-delegation. If  
> someone wants to delegate, they can check the box.
> I'd better send this before the system finds a way to mess it up  
> more, or freeze the computer, etc.
> (more when I can fix the remaining run-on lines in the posting)
> Mike Ossipoff.
> more complicated than Approval. Of course sometimes you only have  
> time to mention Approval.
> (The problem causing the lack of linebreaks was probably opposite to  
> what I'd believed it was. I should make sure that I let my text  
> editor do the linebreaks automatically. That will probably be more l  
> ikely to be transmitted in e-mail than my carriage-return
> characters.)
> Mike Ossipoff
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120122/19662971/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list