On Aug 19, 2011, at 9:22 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > Re: 10 words per signatory. > > 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. > > JQ > > 2011/8/19 Michael Allan <[email protected]> > One possible obstacle to participation (and to agreement) is the sheer > size of the text. I once formulated a "laconic rule of thumb" to > address this kind of problem. It states: [1] > > Limit the consensus draft to 10 words per voter [or signatory]. > > In our case, and depending on how we tallied the level of agreement, > that would mean 20 or 30 words maximum. I recommend: [2] > > These are better than Plurality: > Plurality has big problems. Any of these would solve most: > * Approval > * Bucklin > / (Majority Judgment) > * Condorcet > * Range > * SODA > Approval is ideal as a first step in voting reform. > > 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.
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. 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.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
