RE: Why plurality is not "wrong"

From: Steve Chessin <steve_dot_chessin_at_sun_dot_com>
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 01:24:15 CDT

As someone who helped start this unfortunate digression, I agree with
Laird, David, and others that this list needs to be focused on (and
only on) OVC.

Let's keep discussion of pros and cons of various electoral systems on
the lists that exist for that purpose.

My apologies for helping initiate the diversion.

--Steve Chessin
President, Californians for Electoral Reform
www.cfer.org
steve.chessin@alum.mit.edu
1426 Lloyd Way, Mountain View, CA 94040
(650)-786-6200(w), (650)-962-8412(h)

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
        --Margaret Mead

>From Laird.Popkin@wmg.com Fri Apr 16 23:11:23 2004
>Delivered-To: voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net
>From: "Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp)" <Laird.Popkin@wmg.com>
>To: "'voting-project@lists.sonic.net'" <voting-project@lists.sonic.net>
>Subject: RE: [voting-project] Why plurality is not "wrong"
>Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:04:51 -0400
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>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