Mike Ossipoff ~
In order to move your signature into the list of signatures with
credentials (from the signature category it's in now), Jameson and I
need you to specify your signature in the very brief format that has
been used by other credentialed signers.
That information includes an obsfucated (not "machine-readable") email
address (or some other online contact information), a VERY brief
indication of your credentials (perhaps something like "co-founder of
the Election-method forum" or "co-founder of, and long-time participant
in, the Election-method forum" and/or some other brief credential), and
a VERY brief comment (perhaps something like "strongly prefers Condorcet
methods, and prefers Approval ballots over Score ballots" or whatever).
Please look at the signature format to see the specifics:
http://www.bansinglemarkballots.org/signatures.html
Notice that the format uses semicolons (;) between the "fields." This is
handy for removing email addresses (such as for the
BanSingleMarkBallots.org copy), and might prove useful if there is a
need to put the signatures into a database.
We don't want to compose your signature for you, so we need you to tell
us what to say (besides your name).
By the way, thank you for co-founding this forum!
Richard Fobes
On 4/6/2012 12:46 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
I read that, if I might have any credentials, for the purpose of my
Democracy Chronicles answers, then I should post them here:
I'm a longtime participant in this election-methods mailing list.
I was a founding member of this election-methods mailing list.
In fact, it was I who first proposed the "Single-Winner-Committee" that
was the basis for this election-methods mailing list.
I can't say what someone else might have proposed sooner somewhere else,
but, so far as I'm personally aware,
I was the original proponent and advocate of Condorcet(wv). That's the
winning-votes variety of Condorcet, in which the strength
of a pairwise defeat is measured by the number of voters ranking the
defeater over the defeated, for that pairwise defeat.
I pointed out some strategic advantages of this form of Condorcet.
(But I no longer consider Condorcet to be a good proposal for public
elections, due to its FBC failure. However, it's a fine method
for electorates, such as some committees, etc., that don't have the
excessive timidity and over-compromise-proneness of
our public-elections electorate.)
I've been a longtime advocate of Approval, and I now consider it my
favorite method, and unquestionably by far the best
public proposal for voting-system reform.
Mike Ossipoff
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
