> 2011/10/18 Andy Jennings wrote:
>
> So the declaration is all done, right? Ready to send out to
> everyone we think might be interested?
I think we should freeze the Declaration wording as it is now.
Of course if there is any further wording refinement that anyone(!)
might want made, let's refine that wording now. If not, let's freeze
the wording.
Remember that signers can express in their signature their preference.
As an extreme example, an IRV advocate can write "Supports IRV as better
than any of the officially supported methods, but agrees that plurality
voting must end". Remember that the declaration does not oppose IRV.
Then we can post the Declaration where it can be viewed without logging in.
> I have a bunch of people I want to notify, but for some reason I
> don't feel like sending them to either the Google Doc or to
> Richard's page (http://www.votefair.org/declaration.html).
> Niether seems appropriate for a first impression.
I too do not want my copy of the Declaration (at VoteFair.org) to
continue to be used. It's just a temporary place to view it (that
doesn't require logging in) until we find a home for it.
I think the official copy should reside on a locked page on the
Electorama wiki -- unless someone else has a better idea. Who
can/should do that?
On 10/18/2011 7:16 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> I am still contacting high profile people who we'd like to sign it.
> Personally, I'd avoid calling it "done" quite yet so that we can make
> minor changes if these people request it. But if people feel otherwise,
> I'd be willing to freeze it in its current state.
The reason I am anxious to finalize the wording is because there is an
"army" of frustrated voters who are ready to fight U.S. government
(Congress) in a direct showdown -- i.e. Occupy Wall Street and the "We
are the 99%" movement -- and we need to point to election-method reform
as the most fruitful reform (because that cuts the puppet strings that
now control politicians). I looked on the Occupy Wall Street website
where they are voting on what to demand, and currently election reform
is not a popular choice.
We need to essentially step up and say "we have done the math" and
"single-mark ballots are the enemy".
Also, when people step forward to give public presentations (and make
online-posted videos of those presentations) to educate voters about
what has really been going on, they can use the Declaration (with a
significant number of signatures) as meaningful evidence.
As we gather signatures, I suggest that we create two lists.
One list -- the one we have now -- includes credentials -- which can be
academic or anything relevant (including just having an interest in
election methods).
The second list would not list credentials and instead would just have
the person's name and location -- by nation and possibly province/state,
with a city name being optional. Each signature would be added to the
appropriate list based on what information they supply in their signature.
After the wording is finalized and I find the time, I may create a
Facebook page to expose the Declaration to young people (who are the
ones who will push hardest for election-method reform) and hopefully to
collect signatures (or at least "friend" support) from frustrated
voters. (The suggestion of using Facebook came from a door-to-door
political-petition signature gatherer.) That copy would be the one I
would want to take the time to format more nicely than the temporary
copy I've created at VoteFair.org.
I think it's time to turn the Declaration over to the world. They need
it. Now.
Richard Fobes
On 10/18/2011 7:16 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I am still contacting high profile people who we'd like to sign it.
Personally, I'd avoid calling it "done" quite yet so that we can make
minor changes if these people request it. But if people feel otherwise,
I'd be willing to freeze it in its current state.
Here's the status of my efforts
* I'm pursuing an introduction to Kenneth Arrow through a mutual
friend. This should bear fruit in a couple of months (due to
travel). Personally, I think it's worth the wait.
* I don't have a contact for Maurice Duverger. Any help there would
be good. He's 94 but apparently still going strong; he had an
editorial in Le Monde just a year ago.
* I could contact James Buchanan, but first I'd like to see if
anyone here has some connection, so that he'd be more inclined to
view us favorably.
* I've written to Tony Downs. He's a second-tier name, but if he is
interested, he would be a good person to introduce us to Buchanan.
* I've talked with Steven Brams, Michel Balinski, and Rida Laraki.
They all wish us luck, but refuse to sign because of some (in my
view minor) issue they have with one of the systems we support.
Brams has not definitively shut the door on signing.
* Markus Schulze hasn't signed because we support too many systems,
which in his view weakens the impact.
* I have recently emailed James Green-Armytage, who is probably
reading this mail here. No response yet.
* I haven't contacted Nicholas Tideman. He may be reading this too,
but if he's not, I would like to get as many high-powered names
such as those above to sign on before we talk to him.
* If we had a big-name author, I have a contact with the editor of
/Science/, so we might be able to get an editorial published.
* As you can see on the declaration, Warren Smith has already signed.
Meanwhile, I agree that a good css stylesheet would dramatically improve
the look of the declaration on http://www.votefair.org/declaration.html.
Jameson
2011/10/18 Andy Jennings <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
So the declaration is all done, right? Ready to send out to
everyone we think might be interested?
I have a bunch of people I want to notify, but for some reason I
don't feel like sending them to either the Google Doc or to
Richard's page (http://www.votefair.org/declaration.html). Niether
seems appropriate for a first impression.
Anyone else feel the same way?
~ Andy
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
