Jameson Quinn wrote: > ... I also hope that I start more than one productive discussion - > productive enough to change my mind about some aspects of what I > said. My ultimate hope is that this kind of discussion will help us > have the perspective to recognize, to design, to evaluate, and > finally to begin to agree on the best possible voting systems. The > more big-picture perspective we have and share, the more we will > become an activist force with which nations must reckon.
You propose a far-reaching critique of voting practice. I agree this is needed. But if a critique is to be far reaching, then it must also (you will agree) be broadly and firmly grounded. You propose a number of evaluative criteria in 8 separate threads. Where do these criteria come from? Are they part of a body of voting theory? How broadly and firmly grounded is that theory? (A critique of theory may precede that of practice, if you allow.) -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
