<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Aug 19, 2011, at 9:22 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: 'Lucida Bright'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><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 class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@zelea.com">mike@zelea.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: 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> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>These are better than Plurality:</blockquote><div>Plurality has big problems. Any of these would solve most: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>* Approval<br> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>* Bucklin<br></blockquote><div>/ (Majority Judgment) </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>* Condorcet<br> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>* Range<br> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>* SODA<br> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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></span></blockquote><br></div><div>I'm not a fan of closed lists, but I wonder if their condemnation qualifies as an electoral-method topic. What drives closed lists is the desire for strong parties and party discipline. One might disagree philosophically, but that doesn't make it a bad electoral method if that's the goal. Seems to me the question then becomes how the list gets generated. Suppose, for example, that a party held a ranked-vote primary that used the Condorcet preference ranking of the candidates to create a list. </div><div><br></div><div>And re the word count: I think it's important to list the criteria by which plurality has "big problems" and approval et al "solve" most of them, instead of making the naked claim.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>