[EM] Amateur peer-reviewed "journal" for voting methods, criteria, and compliances?

[Jameson Quinn]

2012/9/30 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>

> Jameson--
>
> First, thanks for putting in some good words for Approval, at EM yesterday.
>
> But I note that, in your message at or to wiiipedia, as part of your
> proposal of MJ there, you referred to Approval and Score as "inferior
> methods".
>

No, I didn't. I said "inferior alternatives". Implicitly, that means "...
for this particular use case" (phrasing which I've now added
explicitly<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Homunq/WP_voting_systems#Inferior_alternatives_for_this_use_case>).
And yes, I do believe that MJ is best for the particular use case I was
talking about there.

In fact, earlier in the piece, I explained that: "Please note that this is
not a one-size-fits-all solution. While Majority Judgment is a good system
overall, there are situations where I'd recommend others even more highly.
For US president, I'd recommend Approval; for US Senate, SODA Voting; for
most congressional and parliamentary systems, a biproportional system such
as PAL voting; in Robert's Rules situations, approval with runoffs; and in
loose internet voting, Score Voting. Such flexibility is the spirit of the
Declaration of Election Method Reform Advocates, of which I am a signator."

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120930/ac531fea/attachment-0004.htm>