Out of the three summaries of the declarations, I think Richard's is the most efficient.
PZ On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Toby Pereira <tdp2...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > I think the executive summary needs to mention that plurality = First Past > the Post. The term plurality is basically never used in the UK and most > people wouldn't know what it means, so to cover as many countries as we can, > we need to use the terms that each country uses. > > *From:* Andy Jennings <electi...@jenningsstory.com> > *To:* electionmeth...@votefair.org > *Cc:* election-meth...@electorama.com > *Sent:* Thursday, 8 September 2011, 6:49 > *Subject:* Re: [EM] Executive Summary for Declaration > > I do like the executive summary. Maybe it's a little too long? > > I think we could do without the sentence "Some good Condorcet methods > are:..." > > I do think the PR section could be significantly shortened. > > I made a few changes. Feel free to review, roll back, and discuss if you > think I have erred. > > ~ Andy Jennings > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Richard Fobes < > electionmeth...@votefair.org> wrote: > > On 9/7/2011 2:09 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote: > > I still think the 12 page declaration (incl table of contents) needs an > > executive summary. The table of contents does not in my honest opinion > > give good enough information. > > > I agree that the declaration needs an executive summary. Here is what I've > come up with as a first draft: > > ----- Executive Summary ----- > > This declaration, which has been signed by election-method experts from > around the world, publicly denounces the use of plurality voting in > governmental elections. Plurality voting mistakenly assumes that the > candidate who receives the most ballot marks – on single-mark ballots – is > the most popular. Plurality voting also suffers from vote splitting, which > is what forces political parties to offer only a single choice in each > election. > > As replacements for plurality voting, this declaration recommends four > significantly fairer election methods, namely, in alphabetical order: > Approval voting, any Condorcet method, Majority Judgment voting, and Range > voting. These methods use better ballots – namely the Approval ballot, > Ranked ballot, and Score ballot – to collect much more preference > information compared to plurality's primitive single-mark ballot. > > The lack of awareness about plurality voting's unfairness arises from its > use of single-mark ballots, which not only fail to collect enough > information to correctly identify the most popular candidate, but also fail > to collect enough information to produce proof or evidence of the unfair > results. > > Computer technology now makes it easy to count better ballots and correctly > identify who deserves to win. All the supported methods are based on the > fact that a majority of voters, not just a plurality of voters, must approve > or prefer the winning candidate in order to produce fairer results. > > In spite of the academically recognized, well-known unfairness of plurality > voting, it is used throughout Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, > and to some extent nearly every democracy around the world. As a > consequence of adopting fairer election methods, this declaration's signers > expect the benefits to include a dramatically reduced gap between voters and > government, more easily -- and fairly -- resolved political conflicts, and > significantly increased economic prosperity for any region that adopts > fairer election methods. > > Significantly the election-method experts do not support the use of > instant-runoff voting, which is also known as the alternative vote. This > method is based on the mistaken belief that the candidate with the fewest > plurality votes is the least popular candidate. > > The four supported methods also can be adopted for use in non-governmental > situations, such as electing an organization's officers, making democratic > decisions, and electing corporate board members. > > The signers of this declaration do not share any common political beliefs, > and are confident that the recommended election reforms will not favor any > particular political parties or political orientations. Their clearly stated > goal is to improve election fairness by replacing primitive plurality voting > with any of the fairer supported methods. Their expectation is that a higher > level of democracy will lead to higher standards of living, reduced > conflicts, and widespread greater economic prosperity, just as replacing > monarchies and dictatorships with plurality voting has produced dramatic and > widespread benefits. > > The signers urge everyone to learn more about how voting should be done – > using Approval voting, Condorcet methods, Majority Judgment voting, or Range > voting – and begin adopting the supported voting methods in whatever > situations currently, yet inappropriately, use plurality voting. > > ----- end ----- > > It mentions some concepts that currently aren't in the declaration itself, > so if this executive summary is liked, adjustments will need to be made in > either this summary or in the declaration. > > Also note that this summary does not mention PR. We still need to decide > what to do about that section. It is long yet just says we like PR but > oppose closed-list PR. > > Richard Fobes > > > On 9/7/2011 2:09 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote: > > Dear Jameson, > > I still think the 12 page declaration (incl table of contents) needs an > executive summary. The table of contents does not in my honest oppinion > give good enough information. > > An executive summary is standard when writing policy recommendations > like this, and you cannot write a scientific paper without an abstract. > > On the other hand I understand, that writing summaries and abstracts is > sometimes a pain (it is at least to me), and that it is easier to point > out things that could be improved and more difficult to do something > about it, like writing the summary myself. > > I dont write this just to nag. If you want your recommendations to be > read by decision makers, you had better catch the interest within the > one or two minutes this person will maximally spend do decide if the > declaration is worth reading. > > It would be a petty, if this iniciative faild to get impact because the > lack of a summary. > > Basically, a summary would give the declaration a wider audience and > increase the potential political impact of the declaration. > > Best regards > Peter Zborník > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com > <mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.**com <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > ... > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info