I refer both David Wetzell and Mike Ossipoff to this guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
I favor interleaved style with annotation headers and nested ">" quotation indicators. Which, according to that article, makes me an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy. Nevertheless, I believe it promotes clarity in long mailing list threads. Ted On 04 Nov 2011 12:20:42 -0700, David L. Wetzell wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:??MIKE OSSIPOFF <[email protected]> > To:??<[email protected]> > Date:??Thu, 3 Nov 2011 21:12:09 +0000 > Subject:??[EM] Reply to a few IRV arguments > > I'm sorry, I can't find the message that I'm replying to. It was by an > apparent > IRV > advocate. > > He said that claims about IRV's problems are "theoretical" or "hypothetical", > and have never > been observed. Of course that isn't true. > > In Australia, where IRV has been in use for a long time, various people have > reported to us on EM > that it isn't at all unusual for voters to bury their favorite to top-rank a > compromise, so as not to > "waste their vote". Sound familiar? That's what is done in Plurality, in this > country, by everyone who > doesn't consider the Democrat and Republican the best. > > dlw: Remind me, are voters required to rank all of the candidates in both > elections? > It may still happen, but it happens less with IRV. ?? > > MO:And, in Australia, as here, there remains a two-party system, a political > system with two large parties who > always win. Here, that's the result of Plurality. Given the way people vote in > Australia, and the > reason that they give, that might be why Australia, too, has a two-party > system. > > dlw: Not everyone thinks having a two-party dominated system is bad. ??Good > luck getting electoral reforms in a two-party dominated system tilting to a > single-party dominated system that level the playing fiield for all parties > 100%. > > MO:Theoretical or hypothetical? IRV's compromise-elimination problem is > blatantly obvious: > > All it requires is that candidate-strength (favoriteness) taper gradually away > from the middle sincere CW. > > That's hardly an unusual state of affairs. > > dlw:??Remind me what CW is? ?? > I view voter preferences as endogenous, more so than exogenous and fuzzy. ?? > > I don't think we need to nail the center, so much as we need to have it moved > via extra-political cultural change-oriented activities. ??This lets me deemph > these purported flaws in IRV. ?? > > MO:Under those conditions, eliminations begin at the extremes, and transfers > send votes inwards, till the candidates > flanking that middle CW accumulate enough votes to easily eliminate hir. > > We'll never know how often that happens unless the raw rankings are available > from IRV elections. But it > must happen quite often, given the common state of affairs that is its > reqirement. > > Andy himself implied an admission that voters in IRV should be advised that > sometimes it's necessary > to bury their favorite, to top-rank a compromise. > > dlw: Some may think that this is wise. ??IRV doesn't leave no party behind. ?? > But they'd be voting like that a lot more often with plurality. ?? > Ultimately, though if folks want to change things, they need to do more than > try to get the right party into power. ?? > > MO:Do we want a method that needs that??? Do we want that when there are > plenty > of methods that don't force > that favorite-burial strategy? > > dlw: Do most people care? ??Not really. ?? > At the end of the day, it's just not that key of a facet of an electoral rule. > IRV is a signicant improvement over FPTP. ?? > It's got a first-mover and a marketing edge over all other alternatives to > FPTP > in the US. ?? > There is no self-evident oft-used alternative. ??You all proffer four > possibilities. ?? > That's not going to help rally folks around electoral reform. > > IRV+(PR in "More local" elections) is a sound prescription for making the US's > political system a lot better, especially when coupled with even more critical > political cultural changes, like what #OWS is trying to accomplish. > This is what's going to be on the front-burner and so do you want to get > behind > it or do you want to try shoot its tires? ??Cuz, unless you got a clear > alternative that is easy to market to US voters, the consequence will be to > retain FPTP in the US for even longer. > dlw > > Mike Ossipoff > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info -- araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
