To: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
I believe that you imply, in your message copied below, that you like
the following words in the older version of the recently edited
paragraph (of the Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates):
"... we would not hesitate to support any of these methods over
plurality voting"
Unfortunately it is becoming clear that the words "support" and "any"
are problematic.
Does "support" mean just being willing to vote for any one of them if a
referendum is offered? Or does it mean that every time one of us
advocates the adoption of our favorite method that we must also mention,
and express support for, all the other declaration-supported methods?
And if one of us supports a non-favorite method in some circumstances
but not in other circumstances, would our commitment to the declaration
be violated if we expressed opposition to that non-favorite method being
adopted in a situation for which we think is not appropriate?
Very significantly, does signing the declaration mean that none of us
can collect signatures for a different declaration that supports only
our favorite method? This issue already arose when Warren Smith posted
a petition expressing support for range voting, with added support for
an additional method (Approval?), without mentioning Condorcet methods.
I think that such actions should not be disallowed.
Although I too would like to express strong cooperation among
election-method experts, I think it is more important that our
signatures represent solid backing for every sentence in the declaration
(except perhaps the sentences in the method-specific "advantage"
paragraphs, which are clearly qualified as being from each method's
advocates).
Looking farther into the future, I presume we will be getting signatures
from non-experts, and I think we can get more signatures if we do not
try to falsely imply unity that isn't really among us, and isn't among
the non-experts (especially keeping in mind that IRV advocates may want
to sign it).
Our real purpose, as I see it, is to express opposition against
plurality voting and single-mark ballots, and do so based on our
credibility as expert mathematicians (and social-choice experts, etc.).
That is what "on-the-ground" and "in-the-streets" election-method
reform advocates -- the ones who are willing to attract media attention
and take leadership roles for such reforms -- need as ammunition in
their fight against plurality voting. Remember that they, not we, will
be choosing which election methods will become adopted, and where.
If there is additional support from other election-method experts for
the previous/older wording, then we may be able to find a compromise
wording. Otherwise I think we need to keep the new wording. Yet, as
I've expressed before, we are striving to reach consensus, so at this
point we have just two votes from Jameson Quinn and I for the new
wording and one vote for the older wording. This ballot box is still
open for further opinions.
Richard Fobes
On 10/11/2011 8:55 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
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
