Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + a method proposal
Dave Ketchum <davek <at> clarityconnect.com>
2008-06-02 03:19:16 GMT
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:05:14 -0400 Fred Gohlke wrote:
> Good Afternoon, Dave
> I did a very poor job of describing my intentions when I started the
> outline based on Juho's comments. It struck me it would be a good idea
> to encourage a joint effort to create a sound electoral method. Several
> ideas are regularly discussed on [Election-Methods] and, although I'm
> not intimately familiar with most of them, they seem to favor fixed
> approaches. Since I don't think any have gained general approval, I
> thought it might be worthwhile to seek a more flexible approach in the
> hope of combining the best elements of all of them.
> The statements in the outline are not intended (or expected) to remain.
> They should be replaced by more definitive statements as various people
> challenge this or that assertion and help mold a clear, sound method of
> electing our public officials. My role in the process is that of a
> clerk. I fully intend to voice my opinion, but the outline must be what
> others want it to be, not my impression of what they want it to be.
> There is the obvious difficulty of properly expressing the views of
> others, so, my preference is that contributions be written to replace
> statements in the outline. I am concerned about the handling of
> divergent opinions, but will cross that bridge when I come to it.
> Ideally, the outline would be in a fixed location where it could be
> maintained, but I've no idea of the practicality of that notion. Unless
> and until we can made such an arrangement, I will append the outline, in
> it's then-current form, to some of my posts. I'm not certain I'll be
> available to continue the process, but feel confident that, if the idea
> has merit, someone will find a way to make it work.