I did not see this message until after I had added the names of the
Wikipedia articles.
If we really are trying to get people to use our supported election
methods then we cannot send them to academic journals or even
general-audience books because the expected convention is to find
information online.
Another option is to provide one online location for each of the four
supported methods. You could supply a website you like for your
preferred method. The most appropriate choice for the Condorcet methods
is the "Condorcet method" Wikipedia article.
Richard Fobes
On 8/29/2011 6:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I have made some further changes to the statement
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US>,
mostly to clarify the advantages and to speak of how this issue spans
the political spectrum; you may see them by looking at the doc.
Currently, I think that the weakest point of the statement is the
exhortation to look things up on Wikipedia. I suggest giving a
bibliography, and saying that "we do not endorse everything in every
paper or book cited in our bibliography, and in particular we do not
believe that any negative statement about the systems we have mentioned
should be construed to imply that the system criticized is worse than
plurality overall." The bibliography can include some Wikipedia
articles, including "voting system", but it should also include
important scholarly articles, whether published in peer-reviewed
journals or not.
JQ
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
