Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/pluralitybook/plurality

.gitignore

@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
 .DS_Store
 .ipynb_checkpoints/
-__pycache__/
+__pycache__/
+.vscode

contents/english/5-6-⿻-voting.md

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ While the above problems seem diverse, they really boil down to two problems: ho
 
 Two recent developments have offered exciting, though incomplete, approaches to addressing these problems.  We highlighted the first at the start of the chapter: quadratic voting and other related approaches to incorporating voting weights.  Quadratic voting originates with statistician (and, unfortunately, eugenicist) Lionel Penrose, father of the prominent contemporary astrophysicist Roger Penrose.  He noted that, when weighing votes, it is natural, but misleading, to give a party with twice the legitimate stake in a decision twice the votes.  The reason is that this will typically give them more than twice as much power.  Uncoordinated voters on average cancel one another out and thus the total influence of 10,000 completely independent voters is much smaller than the influence of one person with 10,000 votes. 
 
-A physical analogy, prominently studied by Lick of all people, may be useful to see why.[^Lick]  Consider a noisy room where one is trying to have a conversation.  It is often the case that the overall decibels of the noise are far greater than the strength of the voice of a conversation partner.  Yet it is often still possible to hear what they are saying.  Part of this is driven by the human capacity for focus, but another factor is that precisely what makes the background "noise" is that each contributor is far weaker than the (closer) voice one is attending to.  Given that the sounds of all this noise are largely unrelated, they tend to cancel out on average and allow the one voice that is just a bit stronger to shine far stronger.  Visual signal processing can be similar, where a range of scribbles fade into a gray or brown background, allowing a clear message that is only slightly stronger to stand out against it.
+A physical analogy, prominently studied by J.C.R. Licklider of all people, may be useful to see why.[^Lick]  Consider a noisy room where one is trying to have a conversation.  It is often the case that the overall decibels of the noise are far greater than the strength of the voice of a conversation partner.  Yet it is often still possible to hear what they are saying.  Part of this is driven by the human capacity for focus, but another factor is that precisely what makes the background "noise" is that each contributor is far weaker than the (closer) voice one is attending to.  Given that the sounds of all this noise are largely unrelated, they tend to cancel out on average and allow the one voice that is just a bit stronger to shine far stronger.  Visual signal processing can be similar, where a range of scribbles fade into a gray or brown background, allowing a clear message that is only slightly stronger to stand out against it.
 
 When background signals are completely uncorrelated and there are many of them, there is a simple way to mathematically account for this: a series of uncorrelated signals grows as the square root of their number, while a correlated signal grows in linear proportion to its strength.  Thus 10,000 uncorrelated votes will weigh as heavily as only 100 correlated ones.  This implies that, to award the holder of stake only proportionately greater power, its voting weight should grow as the square root of its stake, a principle often called "degressive proportionality".  This in turn suggests a direction for addressing several of challenges above by making a geometric (multiplicative) compromise between the intuitions of weighted and simple voting and by allowing expression of preference strength across issues and votes but taking the square root of the "weight" a voter puts on any issues.  The former idea is Penrose's "square-root voting" rule, approximately used in several elements of governance in the European Union across member nations. The later is the "quadratic voting" rule we discussed above and used, for another example, frequently in the Colorado State Legislature to prioritize spending.
 
@@ -76,6 +76,5 @@ Nor is it likely that, anytime in the near future, voting systems will stretch g
 
 
 
-
-[^Sen]: Cite *Collective Choice and Social Welfare*
-[^Lick]: Cite Lick work in this area.
+[^Sen]: Amartya Sen, Collective Choice and Social Welfare, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970).
+[^Lick]: Joseph Licklider, “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” _IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics_ 1 (March 1960): 4–11, available at https://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/psz/Licklider.html.

contents/english/6-4-environment.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Environment
 
-⿻ may be even more core to addressing the most pressing environmental problems we face, from climate change to biodiversity loss, than even "green technologies" like clean energy are, because they provide a basis both for cooperation on developing those technologies and for establishing a positive communication with natural features than represents their interests in social decisions.  As such, ⿻ may be central to the survival of the earth as a human-supporting habitat.
+⿻ may be even more core to addressing the most pressing environmental problems we face, from climate change to biodiversity loss, than even "green technologies" like clean energy are, because they provide a basis both for cooperation on developing those technologies and for establishing a positive communication with natural features that represents their interests in social decisions.  As such, ⿻ may be central to the survival of the earth as a human-supporting habitat.
 
 ---