Mike O. wrote:
>2. Purpose & method of voting on standards:
>Approval would be fine with me. But, since it's often difficult to
>get many people to vote, wouldn't it be better to simply order the
>standards based on 1 vote
How will this proposal handle standards which are submitted later?
>3. Standards causally related to other standards:
>Many of the standards are about effects of meeting or not meeting
>other standards. It would pare down our standards list if we
>didn't use these indirect standards. For instance, many of the
>standards, such as encouraging more people to run, are about
>things that are consequences of the lesser-of-2-evils problem,
>the need for defensive strategy.
Good idea. These can be converted from Standards to Arguments.
>Majority rule could have 2 subheadings:
>3a) Not electing someone to whom a majority prefers someone else
>3b) Not electing someone whom a majority disapprove absolutely
> (though that's more difficult to define, and more difficult
> for the voter to judge)
Please suggest keyphrases for the faq.
At the moment, the envisioned process doesn't facilitate subheadings.
Can these be separate standards?
>Of course I was only kidding when I said "If disapproval can
>disqualify someone, how would we ever elect Clinton?" I left out
Do you want to suggest a different faq description for the
"Viability of Compromise" standard? Do you want this standard
dropped, or converted to argument?