Re: Why plurality is not "wrong"

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 06:16:06 CDT

At 11:45 PM -0500 4/16/04, Jeff Almeida wrote:
>Besides which, if you read what I have been saying closely, I have never
>argued that we should be unwilling to tabluate a plurality winner. All
>I'm asking is that we include a blanket caveat that pluralities are more
>likely to admit aborrent results, much like using a toaster while sitting
>in a bathtub.

As many on this list have stated, it is not the place of the OVC to
say any such thing. We will support a variety of mechanisms for
handling multiple candidates when one is to be chosen. We will not
advocate any particular one nor will we oppose any particular one.

Let me be clear that there are other organizations that advocate for
or against various voting schemes. Our objective is to support
whatever voting scheme is chosen by the jurisdiction. Advocating or
opposing any voting scheme is in conflict with our desire to be
adopted by as many jurisdictions as possible. After all, were we to
caution against plurality voting, we might we be drawn into that
political debate in public, harming our chances of adoption in
jurisdictions that favor plurality voting and were resistant to
change.

Do you have something to contribute to the OVC other than your
interest in alternatives to plurality voting?

Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= 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