Structured messages; Electoral standards (was Re: Where to conve

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Structured messages; Electoral standards (was Re: Where to conve

Craig Carey-2
Mike wrote:
>Shall we start beginning our SW letters with a table-of-contents
>& a summary (maybe combined with the table-of-contents), & keywords?
>And a numbered subheading structure to match the table of contents?

Imho, this is better than no structure, but not as good as working
out an outline whose structure will be reflected in our messages'

Same opinion on non-SingleWinner messages.

>Maybe the outline should have a place for standards by which to
>evaluate & compare methods. [snip]

Yes.  I've been thinking about everting the outline I proposed a
while back, so instead of organizing by electoral method (listing the
pros and cons of each--how they meet or fail to meet the standards)
it would be organized by the standards (ranking each electoral
method according to how well the particular standard is met).  The
readers would be able to judge which standards they consider most
important, and see which methods score well there.

Both organizations will be valuable, but I'm not sure whether this
can be done in one hyperlinked document.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Structured messages; Electoral standards (was Re: Where to conve

Craig Carey-2
I agree that's the way to do it--organizing the outline & the discussion
around standards. That puts the whole thing on solid footing, whereas
it would otherwise have been difficult to compare the methods or know
where to start.

That hadn't occurred to me, for the FAQ outline & the report to be
based primarily on standards, with methods voted on, and listed in
the report, according to how well they did by each proposed standard.
But that's the way to do it.

Now we've got this project in motion, because we've got a definite
natural direction, & a simple, unmistakable order of things to do,
resulting in a report & FAQ which will be especially easy for ER
members to interpret & use.


I nominate the standards that I've named in previous letters to this

1. Getting rid of the lesser-of-2-evils problem
   (By which I mean ensuring that a voter can cast a reliably-counted
   full-strength vote for Compromise over Worst, while still casting
   one for Best over them both)

2. Getting rid of the need for defensive strategy
   (By which I mean ensuring that a majority can get what it wants,
   including the defeat of a candida whom they want defeated, without
   doing other than voting sincerely)

3. Majority rule. Same as #2, above.


Maybe these wordings could be improved. Maybe different people
would have different definitions for standards by the same name,
in which case, e.g., #1 would inlcude 1a & 1b, as different
standards going by the name "Getting rid of the lesser-of-2-evils
problem", if that term means different things to differnt people.