RE: Why plurality is not "wrong"

From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) <"Popkin,>
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 01:04:51 CDT

I'm with David on this one. OVC has to focus on tackling one specific issue,
which is implementing and promoting an open voting system, and say _nothing_
about any other issues because it's, at best, a distraction from that goal.

And OVC has a time limit -- the HAVA funding that enables the transition to
electronic voting systems expires in (I believe) 2006, so distractions could
cause us to fail.

The OVC should support people using the software to use whatever vote
resolution mechanism they like -- we have a "ranking" election on the sample
ballot, along with plurality votes, in order to illustrate that point.

But we shouldn't endorse or promote any particular style of voting, any more
than we would endorse a particular hardware vendor over another, or a
particular kind of paper over another, or a particular touchscreen vendor
over another, etc. Those issues matter in the broader scheme of voting, but
by picking a "right answer" on those issues, we'd only serve to alienate the
large number of people who we label as "wrong." So we should support any
vote resolution mechanism any locality might care to use, just as we would
run on any reasonable hardware, or print on any reasonable printer, because
that maximizes the potential adoption of the OVC system.

- LP

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net
[mailto:owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net]On Behalf Of David
Mertz
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 1:33 AM
To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
Subject: Re: [voting-project] Why plurality is not "wrong"

On Apr 17, 2004, at 12:45 AM, Jeff Almeida wrote:
> I'm asking is that we include a blanket caveat that pluralities are
> more
> likely to admit aborrent results

NO!

This is so very much not the purpose of OVC. It is utterly and wholly
irrelevant; and it does nothing except discredit OVC. If we publish
that, we've lost the game. Actually, I'm not sure if you mean
'aberrant' or 'abhorrent', but neither is an OVC position.

...

Yours, David...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
mertz@ | The specter of free information is haunting the `Net! All the
gnosis | powers of IP- and crypto-tyranny have entered into an unholy
.cx | alliance...ideas have nothing to lose but their chains. Unite
       | against "intellectual property" and anti-privacy regimes!

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Apr 30 23:17:10 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT