<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<pre><i>Jameson:<br><br>I'd said:<br><br></i>><i> There are at least two ways of achieving those goals (If<br></i>><i> there are additional ways, then describe them, <a href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-December/029509.html#" style="text-decoration: underline;" id="_GPLITA_0" title="Powered by Text-Enhance">starting</a> with their<br></i>><i> <a href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-December/029509.html#" style="text-decoration: underline;" id="_GPLITA_1" title="Powered by Text-Enhance">motivation</a> and principle).<br></i>><i><br></i>><i><br><br>You replied:<br><br></i><i>You neglect to mention the third way: delegation and sequential<br></i>assignment, as in SODA.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Yes, that's true. My list only included the ballots-only-based approaches.<br><br>I'd acknowledged that SODA avoids the problem too, but, sure, in order for a<br>list of ABE approaches to be a list of all the ABE approaches, it should<br>include SODA.<br><br>Each solution-approach has been criticized on some grounds or other.<br><br>It's difficult to know which things would put the public off. Only polling<br>could answer that question. I've only asked a few people.<br><br>I described,to someone, ABucklin, MTAOC, MMT, GMAT, MMTA and SODA.<br><br>That person rejected ABucklin as too elaborate and wordy, and so that person wouldn't <br>accept MABucklin either. That person rejected MTAOC, GMAT and SODA for the same reason,<br>(and because of SODA's departure from ballots-only custom), and, of the ABE approaches <br>other than those I posted today, only accepted MMT and MMTA. <br><br>Of course those method-rejections and acceptances weren't based on a study of how<br>the method would do, but were only comments about whether they were sufficiently<br>briefly-defined.<br><br>But there's no doubt that approach #3, the optional faction-size requirement, would<br>be proposably simple and brief.<br><br>I admit that I haven't talked to many people. Two people rejected ABucklin, but liked<br>MTA and Approval--but they aren't ABE-avoiding methods.<br><br>I certainly don't claim that my few conversations show that SODA isn't publicly winnable.<br>Questions about public winnability are still guesswork.<br><br>That's why it's necessary to consider all approaches that work adequately (and SODA, of<br>course does), and eventually do some polling &/or focus groups, regarding public<br>acceptability.<br><br>I don't think that any FBC/ABE method should be ruled out at this point, unless it<br>can be shown that it doesn't work well. SODA would work fine.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br></pre> </div></body>
</html>