irVote
website and look it up. The FairVote contact info page and the full
name and address listed on it is:
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=96
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, Maryland 20912
-Ralph Suter
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:49:24 -0600
From: "Kathy Dopp"
racy, I
wish you would take a little time to seriously study it. A good place
to start is a book by two Australian academics: "Random Selection in
Politics" by Lyn Carson and Brian Martin, Praeger 1999. It's a
ridiculously expensive book, but you can read it online at:
http://www.qu
l as
research and experimentation about different methods and their
relative advantages and disadvantages in different kinds of situations
could conceivably transform the debate about voting methods. It could
result in much more effective efforts to get better methods adopted,
both for public elec
Jan put it in
his subject line, of "encouraging group intelligence and working
toward consensus".
-Ralph Suter
In a message dated 7/9/08, Jan Kok wrote:
Right now I feel like I've been struck with divine inspiration. Hope I
don't wake up tomorrow feeling like an idio
and better methods could be
adopted later, after voting administration problems that now make IRV
and other complex methods (including Condorcet and Range) so
problematic are resolved.
-Ralph Suter
Terry Bouricius wrote:
Ralph and all,
As you responded to Jan Koch's E-Meeting idea, I&
On 8/15/2011 1:42 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
It's true that I might agree to a statement if all it said were
"We believe that approval is marginally superior to plurality"
(thought to the extent that I agreed, I don't think it's enough
better to merit any energy in advocating it).
I haven'
Several thoughts (not a thorough critique) after one straight-through
reading:
1. Length: I agree that for the reasons Richard described, the length of
his proposed declaration (less than 2300 words) is appropriate and that
trying to shorten it very much would be a mistake. It's long compared
Even if improving public elections is the statement's primary aim, that
needn't be its only aim -- nor, I'm convinced, should it be.
One point I've tried to make is that one of the best practical means for
improving the prospects for reforming difficult-to-change public
elections would be to p
nsive for that) in an appendix to the
declaration.
-Ralph Suter
On 9/13/2011, Jameson Quinn wrote:
The suggestion has come from Warren Smith. His steps are (Warren, correct me
if I'm wrong):
1. Write a version of the declaration suitable for publication as an
editorial of an academic j
uld, though far from ideal to most voters, also
make far less objectionable legislative decisions overall than a
"stronger" but widely disliked major party winner.
-Ralph Suter
On 9/23/2011 7:32 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
But you are completely missing the point of what I wrote. It is
Analysis Finds Incorrect Use of Ranked-Choice Voting
By SHANE SHIFFLETT
Published: December 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/analysis-finds-incorrect-use-of-ranked-choice-voting.html
The results are in: San Francisco voters have trouble with ranked-choice
elections.
Despite a $300
It's no more crap than your cranky knee-jerk comments, which are clearly
based on your speculative (and therefore dubious) negative assumptions
about the intent of the article's author and the people who conducted
the university study. The article only briefly describes that study
(which runs t
onations, but I'm no longer a supporter and have been
dismayed by its positions on IRV and some other issues and by its
failure to become a democratic membership organization.
-Ralph Suter
On 13 Mar 2013 1:16 PDT, Richard Fobes wrote:
For the benefit of those who don't understa
13 matches
Mail list logo
