On 8/25/2011 11:29 AM, Peter Zbornik wrote: > ... > As this is an "expert opinion", it is important that almost all experts > agree, otherwise it is not an expert opinion. > ... > Then the other question is who is an expert. > Someone who has published at least one paper in a peer-reviewed journal. > ...
In my opinion it would be too restrictive to require that signers of our upcoming "Declaration of Election-Method Experts" (or whatever it's called) must have written voting-method content for academic journals, Wikipedia, or other "peer-reviewed" publications.
Specifically I think that all the participants here and on other voting-method forums also should be allowed to sign. Additionally there are other election-method experts who do not have a dominant online presence, and who may not have published in an academic publication.
I think that ultimately what's important is that each person's credentials or affiliation as indicated in their signature should be recognized as relevant. For example, if someone has a graduate degree in mathematics, political science, or economics, their signature would be a helpful endorsement of what we are promoting, and it shouldn't matter that they haven't published material about voting methods (provided they do understand election methods).
More specifically, I would argue that Peter Zbornik is an election-method expert. His questions and comments here clearly indicate his expertise even though his involvement is not based in the academic world.
I would argue that real-world experience in using voting methods and analyzing election data is just as important as reading or writing academic journal articles about voting methods. More specifically, although Rob Ritchie of FairVote (not to be confused with VoteFair) "only" has a degree in philosophy and may not have written what others might regard as peer-reviewed articles, his experience with voting methods certainly qualifies him as an election-method expert. (Whether he would want to sign is a separate matter.)
Of course it's essential for any signer to understand the terminology used in election-method discussions. Beyond that, let's not get too biased in favor of the academic world and neglect the worlds of government, business, and "real life" where experience in using voting methods also can lead to election-method expertise.
That's my opinion. What do others think? Richard Fobes ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
