On 27.5.2011, at 10.01, Jameson Quinn wrote: > This thread, like this list, has two purposes - practical advocacy and > mathematical exploration.
One could divide the field also further by making a difference between 1) practical advocacy, 2) practical exploration of real life examples, 3) practical method exploration in general, and 4) mathematical (theoretical) exploration. These could mean respectively e.g. 1) active participation in politics, 2) using the current status of some country / election as a basis for the work, 3) general recommendations for presidential elections, and 4) delegation of one's vote to an intelligent computer in a future dystopia, or maybe just plain mathematical properties of some methods. > > On the practical advocacy front, I'd propose a process: > 0. We discuss get some degree of informal consensus on this process itself - > I imagine it will take about a week, so say, before Sunday June 5th. > 1. We draw up a statement which details the serious problems with plurality > in the US context, and states that there are solutions. Leave a blank space > for a list of acceptable solutions. This statement, when finished (after step > 3) would be "signable" by any members of this list, completely at their own > option. Good approach. I have one comment on the target statement. Expression "problems with plurality in the US context" contains the assumption that the traditional two-party system in not the correct solution for the US. Expression "and states that there are solutions" refers to possible solutions at some general and neutral level. This latter formulation is a theoretical statement that does not yet say what the US should do. This is interesting from the point of view that US citizens might want to say what the US should do in this question while the non-US-citizens might be happy with stating the theoretical facts and possible options only. There could thus be two levels. One for practical advocation and political activism within some country and one for general opinions, coming from neutral experts (maybe unwilling to take position on the internal matters of that country). That is, category 1) vs. categories 2) and 3) in my list above. > 2. We take a vote on what options to list. We can use betterpolls.com, > remembering that the scores there are -10 to 10, and negative/positive is > mapped to approval/disapproval. Voting could be a more difficult process than collecting the list of options using sone "informal consensus" as in point 0. In general I tend to rely on some single person (or few) taking a leading role in creating such a paper that it can be agreed my some critical mass. One can also produce serially multiple versions of the list and paper to find the best combination (that the creators and as large group of supporters as needed are happy to sign). > 3. We list the options and the winner(s) in the statement and sign it. > 4. When we have a good number of signatures, we put out a "press" release to > some bloggers who've shown an interest in the issue (e.g. Andrew Sullivan) Would "we" be the list of supporters? That sounds easier than using the name of this list. > > My hope is that, despite the varied opinions, we could say something clearly > and strongly enough to have an impact. I'm sure there are many points where most (or at least many credible) experts agree and that would bring useful information to politicians, practical reformers and regular voters. Maybe it would take some strong individual(s) dedicated to this kind of practical matters to extract those opinions out from the rest of the experts. I'd be happy to see some general statements with wide consensus among experts on how the voting practices could be improved allover the world (i.e. also practical facts that can support real life decisions in addition to personal opinions and mathematical facts). Juho > > JQ > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
