headers
Seth Johnson | 18 Jul 09:49
Picon

David Reed Delivers the Goods Again


(. . . unto the Energy and Commerce Committee.  Following are links to
a note on David's blog, his testimony, and to video of the hearing
itself that hopefully will become live again.  I only intercepted the
notice I had of this in the wee hours of the day of the hearing,
yesterday, so had no time to announce it.  I have not watched the
hearing, but David's text is a wonder of lucidity, presenting a
picture of the technical aspects that provide for "net neutrality" and
illuminating very nicely where and why policy would impact it.  I
understand the House Members responded very well, and Markey
apparently ended with a rather potent comment noting that the reason
for the American Revolution was largely because the British thought
they could just invade people's houses (!).

I have often noted that the moment the neutrality of the Internet was
assured, for decades hence, was in 1977, in the hallways of the
conference in Marina del Rey, California that Vint Cerf oversaw to
develop Bob Kahn's plan for "TCP".  Four people, Danny Cohen, Steve
Crocker, David Reed, and John Schoch, argued on diverse bases for
separating the original plan for TCP into two layers: a pure datagram
lower layer called IP, and two protocols above, TCP and UDP.  David
Reed made his case on the basis of the generality of this platform for
the full diversity of protocol behaviors it would make possible, and
-- however much that particular point might have gained sway at that
moment -- this is the key point that expresses the essential nature of
the platform.  This design essentially made the flexibility of the
network "the stakes" from that very moment on. [See
http://www.nethistory.info/Archives/tcpiptalk.html for details] --
Seth)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Nelson Pavlosky | 14 Jul 18:04
Favicon

statement on freedom and network services

Perhaps this is a statement that SFC should endorse?  With the
appearance of identi.ca perhaps the time for free, open network services
has come and the sun is setting on walled gardens ;-)

http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/

~Nelson~
Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Kevin Driscoll | 11 Jul 23:52
Favicon

Oct 11, 12 - SFFC conference

Save the date!

Students for Free Culture Conference 2008

October 11 and 12
Berkeley, CA

Lots and lots of work to be done between now and then but it's
exciting to have a date and a location! (Especially one that is not in
the Northeast US!)

Mil abrazos,
Kevin
--

-- 
)_)_)_)_)_)_
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
CLAY S | 11 Jul 19:23

Score Voting

Hello folks,

As I believe I stated before, I came here primarily to discuss your voting method.  I understand you use Condorcet voting, and I'd like to convince you to use a simpler and substantially better method called score voting or "range voting".  By "better", I mean "produces greater average satisfaction" per an objective economic metric called Bayesian regret.

http://rangevoting.org/UniqBest.html

This is explored in the book _Gaming the Vote_ by William Poundstone.  Would anyone be open to discussing this?  I personally think that pushing ahead with score voting is the most important objective for humanity.

http://rangevoting.org/LivesSaved.html
http://rangevoting.org/RelImport.html

Regards,
Clay

--
clay shentrup
phone: 206.801.0484

"Iraq? No, YOU rock!"

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kevin Driscoll | 11 Jul 16:11
Picon

FCC chief says Comcast violated Internet rules

The title says it all.

"Martin will circulate an order recommending enforcement action
against the company on Friday among his fellow commissioners, who will
vote on the measure at an open meeting on Aug. 1."

Kevin

--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_hi_te/internet_regulation

FCC chief says Comcast violated Internet rules

By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The head of the Federal Communications Commission said
Thursday he will recommend that the nation's largest cable company be
punished for violating agency principles that guarantee customers open
access to the Internet.
ADVERTISEMENT

The potentially precedent-setting move stems from a complaint against
Comcast Corp. that the company had blocked Internet traffic among
users of a certain type of "file sharing" software that allows them to
exchange large amounts of data.

"The commission has adopted a set of principles that protects
consumers access to the Internet," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told The
Associated Press late Thursday. "We found that Comcast's actions in
this instance violated our principles."

Martin said Comcast has "arbitrarily" blocked Internet access,
regardless of the level of traffic, and failed to disclose to
consumers that it was doing so.

Company spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice on Thursday denied that Comcast
blocks Internet content or services and that the "carefully limited
measures that Comcast takes to manage traffic on its broadband network
are a reasonable part" of the company's strategy to ensure all
customers receive quality service.

Martin will circulate an order recommending enforcement action against
the company on Friday among his fellow commissioners, who will vote on
the measure at an open meeting on Aug. 1.

The action was in response to a complaint filed by Free Press and
Public Knowledge, nonprofit groups that advocate for "network
neutrality," the idea that all Internet content should be treated
equally.

Martin's order would require Comcast to stop its practice of blocking;
provide details to the commission on the extent and manner in which
the practice has been used; and to disclose to consumers details on
future plans for managing its network going forward.

The FCC approved a policy statement in September 2005 that outlined a
set of principles meant to ensure that broadband networks are "widely
deployed, open, affordable and accessible to all consumers."

The principles, however, are "subject to reasonable network management."

Comcast argues that the agency's policy statement is not enforceable
and that the commission has "never before provided any guidance on
what it means by 'reasonable network management.'"

If a majority of commissioners side with Martin, it will be the first
test of the agency's network neutrality principles. Members of both
the House and Senate have sponsored network neutrality bills, but they
have never come close to becoming law.

Large Internet service providers have fought against such regulation,
arguing that it is a solution in search of a problem and that
companies that spend billions on their networks must be free to manage
traffic.

Ben Scott, federal policy chief for Free Press said Thursday night the
FCC's action may have consequences for other Internet providers going
forward.

"This is going to be a bellwether," he said.

Martin, a Republican, will likely get support from the two Democrats
on the commission, who are both proponents of the network neutrality
concept. Those three votes would be enough for a majority on the
five-member commission.
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Luis Gustavo Lira | 10 Jul 04:03
Picon
Favicon

Visiting MIT

Hi, Paola from Cultura Libre will be arriving this sunday. She will be for 4 weeks at MIT working on this open
source projects:

http://scitechbizdev.blogspot.com/2008/06/low-cost-biosensor.html

http://scitechbizdev.blogspot.com/2008/05/incubator-for-low-birth-weight-infants.html

You could contact Paola in this email arilyes at yahoo com

__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! 
Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Luis Gustavo Lira | 10 Jul 03:33
Picon
Favicon

Visiting MIT

Hi guys, Paola from Cultura Libre will be arriving this sunday.
She will be for 4 weeks at MIT working on this open source projects:

http://scitechbizdev.blogspot.com/2008/06/low-cost-biosensor.html

http://scitechbizdev.blogspot.com/2008/05/incubator-for-low-birth-weight-infants.html

You could contact Paola in this email arilyes at yahoo com

__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! 
Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
oday | 7 Jul 18:27
Picon

RIAA disabling audio ports?

Interesting story which is claiming that the "Stereo Mix" option available to
most computers is getting disabled by manufacturers because of pressure from
the RIAA.

It is not disabled in the hardware but at the operating system level.  Turning
it back on requires a series of registry hacks (obviously this is just in
Windows)

http://www.ripten.com/2008/07/07/bend-over-dude-youre-getting-a-dell/
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Eric Beck | 3 Jul 00:37
Picon

PLEASE REMOVE!!!

I have asked SEVERAL times, I have followed procedure, and I KEEP  
getting these e-mails! PLEASE REMOVE ME!

On Jul 2, 2008, at 3:25 PM, discuss-request <at> freeculture.org wrote:

> Send Discuss mailing list submissions to
> 	discuss <at> freeculture.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	discuss-request <at> freeculture.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	discuss-owner <at> freeculture.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: New Girl Talk (Elizabeth Stark)
>    2. Re: New Girl Talk (Fred Benenson)
>    3. Re: New Girl Talk (Elizabeth Stark)
>    4. Re: New Girl Talk (Brian Rowe)
>    5. Re: New Girl Talk (Elizabeth Stark)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:50:35 -0400
> From: "Elizabeth Stark" <emstark <at> gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] New Girl Talk
> To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in
> 	particular" <discuss <at> freeculture.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<55bea5620807021450j77818c81w37f09367f50cb4cc <at> mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hmm..if people remix GT's "CC" album and also get sued, now that  
> would be a
> case...
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Fred Benenson  
> <fred.benenson <at> gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Feel free not to download the album, or download it and not pay  
>> for it.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Rob Myers <rob <at> robmyers.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Elizabeth Stark wrote:
>>>> Yup, super sketchy b/c you can't separate those elements out  
>>>> from the
>>>> infringing work itself.
>>>
>>> NC-ing appropriation art is, on balance, a bit of a fail.
>>>
>>> http://robmyers.org/weblog/2006/03/26/sampling-artists-and-nc/
>>>
>>> And it doesn't explain the situation to consumers, who will  
>>> assume that
>>> the license means that they can't be hassled over posessing an
>>> infringing work.
>>>
>>> - Rob.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/ 
> 20080702/76399541/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:51:28 -0400
> From: "Fred Benenson" <fred.benenson <at> gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] New Girl Talk
> To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in
> 	particular" <discuss <at> freeculture.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<8e447b720807021451n7027bd7ejb5aaa184874a8cb <at> mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I assume you mean sued by the original samplee, not GT
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Elizabeth Stark <emstark <at> gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> Hmm..if people remix GT's "CC" album and also get sued, now that  
>> would be a
>> case...
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Fred Benenson  
>> <fred.benenson <at> gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Feel free not to download the album, or download it and not pay  
>>> for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Rob Myers <rob <at> robmyers.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elizabeth Stark wrote:
>>>>> Yup, super sketchy b/c you can't separate those elements out  
>>>>> from the
>>>>> infringing work itself.
>>>>
>>>> NC-ing appropriation art is, on balance, a bit of a fail.
>>>>
>>>> http://robmyers.org/weblog/2006/03/26/sampling-artists-and-nc/
>>>>
>>>> And it doesn't explain the situation to consumers, who will  
>>>> assume that
>>>> the license means that they can't be hassled over posessing an
>>>> infringing work.
>>>>
>>>> - Rob.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/ 
> 20080702/7b032cf6/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:52:53 -0400
> From: "Elizabeth Stark" <emstark <at> gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] New Girl Talk
> To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in
> 	particular" <discuss <at> freeculture.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<55bea5620807021452s6f72e2bby7d9a248dc8547498 <at> mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Exactly.
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Fred Benenson  
> <fred.benenson <at> gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I assume you mean sued by the original samplee, not GT
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Elizabeth Stark  
>> <emstark <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm..if people remix GT's "CC" album and also get sued, now that  
>>> would be
>>> a case...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Fred Benenson  
>>> <fred.benenson <at> gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Feel free not to download the album, or download it and not pay  
>>>> for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Rob Myers <rob <at> robmyers.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Elizabeth Stark wrote:
>>>>>> Yup, super sketchy b/c you can't separate those elements out  
>>>>>> from the
>>>>>> infringing work itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> NC-ing appropriation art is, on balance, a bit of a fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://robmyers.org/weblog/2006/03/26/sampling-artists-and-nc/
>>>>>
>>>>> And it doesn't explain the situation to consumers, who will  
>>>>> assume that
>>>>> the license means that they can't be hassled over posessing an
>>>>> infringing work.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Rob.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/ 
> 20080702/330489a4/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:21:55 -0700
> From: "Brian Rowe" <brian <at> freedomforip.org>
> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] New Girl Talk
> To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in
> 	particular" <discuss <at> freeculture.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<7b43a54c0807021521v7a989978j2ee7573d6ee1c22e <at> mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I am willing to donate to the GT legal defense fund.
>
> Fair use is tough defense especially when the work is used  
> commercially and
> the work is not a direct parody. I am also not sure one can have a  
> copyright
> interest in an unauthorized derivative work.  The legal questions are
> fascinating and their is a need to enable this type of creative  
> work either
> through legislation or better fair use precedents.
>
> The album is great!
>
> Brian
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Elizabeth Stark <emstark <at> gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> Hmm..if people remix GT's "CC" album and also get sued, now that  
>> would be a
>> case...
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Fred Benenson  
>> <fred.benenson <at> gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Feel free not to download the album, or download it and not pay  
>>> for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Rob Myers <rob <at> robmyers.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elizabeth Stark wrote:
>>>>> Yup, super sketchy b/c you can't separate those elements out  
>>>>> from the
>>>>> infringing work itself.
>>>>
>>>> NC-ing appropriation art is, on balance, a bit of a fail.
>>>>
>>>> http://robmyers.org/weblog/2006/03/26/sampling-artists-and-nc/
>>>>
>>>> And it doesn't explain the situation to consumers, who will  
>>>> assume that
>>>> the license means that they can't be hassled over posessing an
>>>> infringing work.
>>>>
>>>> - Rob.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Brian Rowe
> Freedom for IP
> (206) 335-8577 (Cell)
>
> Access To Justice Technology Principles
> www.ATJWeb.org
>
> Freedom for IP
> www.FreedomforIP.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/ 
> 20080702/03f7d860/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:25:08 -0400
> From: "Elizabeth Stark" <emstark <at> gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] New Girl Talk
> To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in
> 	particular" <discuss <at> freeculture.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<55bea5620807021525n703dbbecoe386cf3ec0b97359 <at> mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>>
>> I am also not sure one can have a copyright interest in an  
>> unauthorized
>> derivative work.
>
>
> Yeah, the caselaw that I recall says that you don't..although we have
> discussed hypotheticals in law school where when the infringing  
> part is so
> separate from the rest of the work that there may still be a  
> copyright in
> the rest of it (imagine a 3 second sample once during a 10 minute  
> song.)
> This is not the case here.
>
> But what that means is GT has no copyright of his own. Fascinating..
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Brian Rowe <brian <at> freedomforip.org>  
> wrote:
>
>> I am willing to donate to the GT legal defense fund.
>>
>> Fair use is tough defense especially when the work is used  
>> commercially and
>> the work is not a direct parody. I am also not sure one can have a  
>> copyright
>> interest in an unauthorized derivative work.  The legal questions are
>> fascinating and their is a need to enable this type of creative  
>> work either
>> through legislation or better fair use precedents.
>>
>> The album is great!
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Elizabeth Stark  
>> <emstark <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm..if people remix GT's "CC" album and also get sued, now that  
>>> would be
>>> a case...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Fred Benenson  
>>> <fred.benenson <at> gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Feel free not to download the album, or download it and not pay  
>>>> for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Rob Myers <rob <at> robmyers.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Elizabeth Stark wrote:
>>>>>> Yup, super sketchy b/c you can't separate those elements out  
>>>>>> from the
>>>>>> infringing work itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> NC-ing appropriation art is, on balance, a bit of a fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://robmyers.org/weblog/2006/03/26/sampling-artists-and-nc/
>>>>>
>>>>> And it doesn't explain the situation to consumers, who will  
>>>>> assume that
>>>>> the license means that they can't be hassled over posessing an
>>>>> infringing work.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Rob.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brian Rowe
>> Freedom for IP
>> (206) 335-8577 (Cell)
>>
>> Access To Justice Technology Principles
>> www.ATJWeb.org
>>
>> Freedom for IP
>> www.FreedomforIP.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080702/ 
> a013e6ec/attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> End of Discuss Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3
> **************************************
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Joe Born | 30 Jun 20:33
Picon

Will User Generated Commentary Change TV?

I thought of freeculture immediately when this came up.

A lot of what we know about the future of TV from big media is pretty
predictable, more choice, better time shifting, more portability, etc.
 Where it really gets interesting is when developers get access to the
TV set do all the kind of random experimentation they do best.

At a BBC sponsored event, a UK developer combined chatting with
television and here's what he got:

http://open.neurostechnology.com/content/crowd-narration-future-tv
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
CLAY S | 27 Jun 19:53

Better voting

Hello,

My name is Clay Shentrup, and I evangelize "score voting", also known as "range voting", where the candidates are simply scored like books on Amazon.  The candidate with the most points, or "best average score", wins.

This system is much simpler than your current Condorcet method, Schulze, and significantly better per an objective economic measure called Bayesian regret (calculated through extensive computer simulation).  This is especially true in light of strategic voting, which is a counter-intuitive result to some.

http://rangevoting.org/UniqBest.html
http://rangevoting.org/StratHonMix.html

My hope is that in the long term, humanity adopts score voting, for the vast betterment of mankind.
http://rangevoting.org/LivesSaved.html

But we have to think "baby steps".  So getting groups like this one to give it a try is important.

You can read more about this issue in the William Poundstone book Gaming the Vote.

Regards,
Clay Shentrup
San Francisco, CA
206.801.0484

--
clay shentrup
phone: 206.801.0484

"Iraq? No, YOU rock!"

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane