Good Afternoon, Mr. Quinn
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 @ 07:25:31 you cited a portion of Michael Allan's
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 @ 23:24:48 post to me, to wit:
"... But if we (this is my hope) can cogently demonstrate this
failing to the experts in this list, especially in terms of
the voting mechanisms they understand so well, then they will
be more open to drawing the larger conclusions that seem so
obvious to you and me, and I daresay others in this list."
and offered this comment:
"I've been trying to avoid entering this sub-thread, as I think
it's mostly angels-on-pinheads stuff, but if you actually have
a point, I suggest you make it, rather than portentiously
musing on how it depends on a supposedly-proven, but still-
debated claim."
Current events on this list should make the point adequately:
Richard Fobes proposed a 'Declaration of Election-Method Experts and
Enthusiasts'. Everyone on the list can participate in honing the
declaration, to the full extent of their desire and ability. That's the
democratic approach.
If, instead, groups of elites proposed versions of the declaration and
told list members to choose between them, that would be profoundly
undemocratic. That's the party-based approach.
I believe (and I think Michael shares this view) an electoral method
that embodies the concept of the former, giving every member of the
electorate an opportunity to participate in the electoral process to the
full extent of their desire and ability, is possible, practical and
necessary.
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
