<div>Re: 10 words per signatory.</div><div><br></div>I don't think I should be the one to judge. What do other people think? If people like things short, I've suggested an extra 15 or 20 words below.<div><br></div>
<div>JQ<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/8/19 Michael Allan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@zelea.com">mike@zelea.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
One possible obstacle to participation (and to agreement) is the sheer<br>
size of the text. I once formulated a "laconic rule of thumb" to<br>
address this kind of problem. It states: [1]<br>
<br>
Limit the consensus draft to 10 words per voter [or signatory].<br>
<br>
In our case, and depending on how we tallied the level of agreement,<br>
that would mean 20 or 30 words maximum. I recommend: [2]<br>
<br>
These are better than Plurality:</blockquote><div>Plurality has big problems. Any of these would solve most: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
* Approval<br>
* Bucklin<br></blockquote><div>/ (Majority Judgment) </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
* Condorcet<br>
* Range<br>
* SODA<br>
Approval is ideal as a first step in voting reform.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Gerrymandering and safe seats are also problems. Proportional representation would solve it. There are many good options, including some with geographical aspects, but closed party list is not good. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
That's 20 words. It leaves no room for elaboration or qualification.<br>
But if someone else wants to sign on, then he can bring up to 10<br>
additional words along with his signature.<br>
<br>
What do you think? Is this a reasonable approach?<br><br></blockquote><div> </div></div><br></div>