Richard Fobes wrote:
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.
I read "supporting these methods over plurality voting" as, that when
given the choice between any of those methods and Plurality, we would
(without hesitation) pick the method, whichever it was.
I understand that exactly what constitutes a choice of one method vs
Plurality might be fuzzy. As you mention, failing to support method X
outright when you prefer Y might lead both X and Y to fail against
Plurality. On the other hand, I still think we prefer all the methods
mentioned in the declaration to Plurality itself, and if we could find
some way of saying so beyond just "anything but Plurality", it would
make the declaration stronger. It could serve to distinguish the methods
of the declaration from, say, Borda, where some of us might say "okay,
that's better than Plurality", and others may say "no, the teaming
effect is too severe".
If the declaration is meant primarily to be against Plurality, then the
newer wording is probably best; but if it recommends methods when people
ask with what one should replace Plurality, then distinguishing the
methods we all like enough (approve in Approval terms? :-) ) from those
that some of us do, is also useful.
(I hope I didn't mangle my words too badly!)
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
