<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'>
Jameson:<BR> <BR>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 speciflying the rules in too much detail. The street-description, and the petition-language, needn't be the legal language (though that should be available upon request). Likewise, for MTAOC or MCAOC, or AOC, people won't demand<BR>to see the computer program, but it will be available to the person who wants to look at it. The person who wouldn't accept a <BR>computer program also wouldn't ask to read it.<BR> <BR>So here's how I described SODA to that person:<BR> <BR>It's like Approval, but, if you vote only for one person, you can optionally check a box indicating that you want that person<BR>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<BR>of candidates to show the order in which s/he would give such delegated approvals.<BR> <BR>That's it. That brief descriptionl tells how the method works.<BR> <BR>As I said yesterday, it seems to me that it would be much more publicly-accepable if the default assumption is non-delegation.<BR>If someone wants to delegate, they can check the box to indicate that.<BR> <BR>I'd like SODA to be a bit fancier: Why should delegation only b e available to the person who has only voted for one candidate? Say you vote for several candidates. Each candidate has a delegation box by hir name. If you want to, you can designate as delegate any<BR>candidate for whom you've voted. (but you can only deleglate just one candidate)<BR> <BR>As in your version, s/he can add to your ballot approvals for candidates for whom you haven't voted, as long as your resulting approval set doesn't skip any candidates in hir publicized ranking.<BR> <BR>Disadvantage: It loses some of SODA's simplicity. I understand that the "S" in SODA is for "simple".<BR> <BR>As you said, the optional-ness of the delegation should avoid any complaint of undemocratic-ness. But of couise opponents<BR>will still try to use that complaint.<BR> <BR>I'll mention SODA (simple or more elaborate) along with the other FBC/ABE methods, any time I suggest new methods more complicated than Approval. Of course sometimes you only have time to mention Approval.<BR> <BR>(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<BR>characters.)<BR> <BR>Mike Ossipoff<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>11111111<BR> </div></body>
</html>