Richard Fobes wrote:
If you have already signed the declaration and do not like the new
wording, please say so. If necessary we can remove your signature, but
hopefully we can resolve any objection (which is likely to be an issue
for others as well). If you like the new wording and have already
signed, no reply is needed.
If this wording refinement is now enticing you to sign this declaration,
please supply your signature in the previously shown format. (A
semicolon separates the signature into: name; contact info
(non-software-collectible); credentials; election-method preference)
I would prefer the previous version, because it states outright that we
prefer each other's advanced methods to Plurality, which I think is the
case. I don't know about the opinions of the others, but in my opinion,
Plurality is a pretty low bar to clear. Of the "realistic" methods (e.g.
not things like Antiplurality, whoever-comes-last-wins, etc), the only
ones where I'd be cautious to say I prefer them over plurality would be
IRV and Borda.
I would still sign the new version, but I think that if we can agree to
support each other's methods against Plurality, the declaration will be
stronger for it.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
