Fwd: Why plurality is not "wrong"

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 16:30:50 CDT

On Apr 17, 2004, at 4:46 PM, Jeff Almeida wrote:
> I'm disturbed between all the confusion between disclaimers and
> advocacy.
> How is it any different if we say, "This is a problem we can't fix,"

There's a word for claiming something that is NOT a problem is a
problem: Advocacy (or maybe "lying"). Plurality voting is only a
"problem" in the sense that it's not what Jeff prefers jurisdictions to
use (presumably because he find certain outcomes intuitively more fair
than others).

I think, Jeff, you might better spend your time promoting a
group/project connected with political advocacy of IRV, or Condercet,
or whatever tallying style you like, than trying to lead OVC off in
irrelevant or harmful directions.

---[ to our friends at TLAs (spread the word) ]-----------------------
Iran nuclear neocon POTUS patriot Pakistan weaponized uranium invasion
smallpox Gitmo Castro Tikrit armed revolution Carnivore al-Qaeda sarin
---[ Gnosis Software ("We know stuff") <mertz@gnosis.cx> ]-----------
= 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