[EM] Voting reform statement - method of consensus drafting
Jameson Quinn wrote: I've made this draft statement into a google doc ... Probably we should continue to discuss here for a while longer, but feel free to also make suggested changes over there... I want to suggest an alternative method of drafting, one that might integrate better with the discussion. Here's a brief demo: fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote: Put Approval Voting here in alphabetical order... - Various *Bucklin* or median-based systems such as *Majority Judgment* - Various *Condorcet* systems, including *Condorcet//Approval, various Condorcet//IRV hybrids, Ranked Pairs, *and* Schulze*. - *Range Voting* (aka Score Voting) - *SODA voting* I agree with Forest and I made the recommended change. What do you think Jameson? http://zelea.com:8080/v/w/D?a=4637b=4627#_3.1 [demo off] Here I propose several modifications to Jameson's draft. These take the form of a composite text diff that shows the differences between his draft and mine, including the particular one I refer to (3.1). This method is based on multiple drafts, one per drafter. Some of the advantages: * Embedding a difference URL in the mailing list helps to focus the discussion. At every step the issue boils down to differences of text, so it can only help to make those differences concrete. * The discussion remains rooted in the mailing list. It need not be transplanted to another medium, such as Google Docs or wiki talk pages. * If the discussion leads to agreement, or if the difference happens to be trivial, then it can be eliminated by pressing the Patch button. This is pretty easy to do (and kind of fun). * Or, if agreement fails, then the difference remains standing. It never gets swept aside by the process or buried in the archives, but remains as a qualification of any consensus that emerges. The software isn't beta ready yet, so I doubt anyone will jump in and start using it full time. But I do hope a few intelligent people will play with it and get some ideas. Here's how to use it: 1. Visit one of the drafts, such as: http://zelea.com/w/User:Jameson.quinn-GmailCom/G/p/vrs 2. Click on My position. That gives you a draft of your own. Login under an alias if you prefer. It requires no account. 3. Go to anybody's draft and click Diff vs. mine. That gives you the full diff. Use the Patch button to get an initial text. 4. Edit the text, do another diff and post the URL for discussion. I had hoped to set this up in the Electorama wiki, but its API isn't functioning. I left some edits there, and will clean up later. Please let me know if you encounter any problems, or have questions. Overall, doesn't this approach make sense? -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Voting reform statement - method of consensus drafting
I appreciate the idea, and I think it has promise. Having just logged in and patched my statement to equal yours, though, I think that the process is still too complicated for a not-explicitly-techie audience. For instance, even I (a relatively savvy guy; for instance, a regular user of git and github) can't figure out how to vote for my own version. And besides the generally-easier interface, google docs has wysiwyg, and comments. So, I'm really sorry, I know that there's a lot of work there, and if it worked out, the idea of putting diffs into emails is a good one... but I'm going to have to say, I still consider the Google Docs versionhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_USas the official one. I've put your suggested changes in there. We can also copy from the google docs view history to paste diffs here. For instance, the first of your suggested changes: The study of voting systems has made significant progress over the last decade , and our understanding is even farther beyond what it was 20 years ago. One important place where that has happened is on the election methods mailing list. I understand that that will not fully work for those with text-only email, and does not provide a url with patch buttons. So I still think that when you smooth out the interface, your system will be better than Google Docs in important ways. But... Sorry, Jameson 2011/8/17 Michael Allan m...@zelea.com Jameson Quinn wrote: I've made this draft statement into a google doc ... Probably we should continue to discuss here for a while longer, but feel free to also make suggested changes over there... I want to suggest an alternative method of drafting, one that might integrate better with the discussion. Here's a brief demo: fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote: Put Approval Voting here in alphabetical order... - Various *Bucklin* or median-based systems such as *Majority Judgment* - Various *Condorcet* systems, including *Condorcet//Approval, various Condorcet//IRV hybrids, Ranked Pairs, *and* Schulze*. - *Range Voting* (aka Score Voting) - *SODA voting* I agree with Forest and I made the recommended change. What do you think Jameson? http://zelea.com:8080/v/w/D?a=4637b=4627#_3.1 [demo off] Here I propose several modifications to Jameson's draft. These take the form of a composite text diff that shows the differences between his draft and mine, including the particular one I refer to (3.1). This method is based on multiple drafts, one per drafter. Some of the advantages: * Embedding a difference URL in the mailing list helps to focus the discussion. At every step the issue boils down to differences of text, so it can only help to make those differences concrete. * The discussion remains rooted in the mailing list. It need not be transplanted to another medium, such as Google Docs or wiki talk pages. * If the discussion leads to agreement, or if the difference happens to be trivial, then it can be eliminated by pressing the Patch button. This is pretty easy to do (and kind of fun). * Or, if agreement fails, then the difference remains standing. It never gets swept aside by the process or buried in the archives, but remains as a qualification of any consensus that emerges. The software isn't beta ready yet, so I doubt anyone will jump in and start using it full time. But I do hope a few intelligent people will play with it and get some ideas. Here's how to use it: 1. Visit one of the drafts, such as: http://zelea.com/w/User:Jameson.quinn-GmailCom/G/p/vrs 2. Click on My position. That gives you a draft of your own. Login under an alias if you prefer. It requires no account. 3. Go to anybody's draft and click Diff vs. mine. That gives you the full diff. Use the Patch button to get an initial text. 4. Edit the text, do another diff and post the URL for discussion. I had hoped to set this up in the Electorama wiki, but its API isn't functioning. I left some edits there, and will clean up later. Please let me know if you encounter any problems, or have questions. Overall, doesn't this approach make sense? -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Voting reform statement - method of consensus drafting
Jameson Quinn wrote: I appreciate the idea, and I think it has promise. Having just logged in and patched my statement to equal yours, though, I think that the process is still too complicated for a not-explicitly- -techie audience. ... I agree, it's not beta ready and I wouldn't recommend using it. Unless participation in the drafting effort began to flag at some point. Then it might be helpful. It has a kind of viral visibility that can be difficult to ignore, if not resist. Let me know if Google Docs ever fails for you in that way, and we can look at staging a recovery bid. ... For instance, even I (a relatively savvy guy; for instance, a regular user of git and github) can't figure out how to vote for my own version. And besides the generally-easier interface, google docs has wysiwyg, and comments. Google Docs and MediaWiki have their pros and cons. Often it comes down to preference. We can support free-range drafting across all media in principle, including Google Docs. But currently we cover only MediaWiki. I should mention that the voting system behind this cannot be compared with those at issue in the reform statement. They have different purposes. Voting is optional too, unless you happen to have lots of participants. Then it becomes indispensible. You would vote for yourself here: http://zelea.com:8080/v/w/Votespace?u=Jameson.quinn-GmailComp=G!p!vrs But self voting is not allowed, because the purpose of these votes is to express agreement. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ So, I'm really sorry, I know that there's a lot of work there, and if it worked out, the idea of putting diffs into emails is a good one... but I'm going to have to say, I still consider the Google Docs version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US as the official one. I've put your suggested changes in there. We can also copy from the google docs view history to paste diffs here. For instance, the first of your suggested changes: The study of voting systems has made significant progress over the last decade , and our understanding is even farther beyond what it was 20 years ago. One important place where that has happened is on the election methods mailing list. I understand that that will not fully work for those with text-only email, and does not provide a url with patch buttons. So I still think that when you smooth out the interface, your system will be better than Google Docs in important ways. But... Sorry, Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
