[Question] How should I back up and redo, in a publicly-edited article?

I’ve been work­ing on the ar­ti­cle https://​​www.less­wrong.com/​​posts/​​Rh8v4ba9w5KTb6onD/​​on­go­ing-thoughts-on-pro­por­tional-vot­ing-meth­ods for some time now. From the be­gin­ning, I was driv­ing to­wards defin­ing a met­ric for pro­por­tional vot­ing method qual­ity that could be con­nected through some chain of rea­son­ing and ap­prox­i­ma­tions to util­i­tar­i­anism. I have now achieved such a defi­ni­tion, and am be­gin­ning to ap­ply my met­ric to real-world vot­ing sce­nar­ios.

And I am re­al­iz­ing that the con­nec­tion to util­i­tar­i­anism is too ten­u­ous and ab­stract to ever hope to get or­di­nary peo­ple to even un­der­stand it ex­ists. Even though I’m no stranger to ex­plain­ing difficult and ab­stract con­cepts in sim­ple con­crete terms, this is just too much of a stretch.

I’d like to use the same build­ing blocks to con­struct a differ­ent met­ric of “vote wastage” which is eas­ier to ex­plain and to grasp. I have a good idea of what that would look like, and es­ti­mate that means rewrit­ing about 15 to 25 of what I have so far.

My ques­tion is: how, if at all, should I pre­serve the ar­ti­cle as it cur­rently stands? Is it im­por­tant for some­body read­ing the ar­ti­cle to un­der­stand how I came to this new idea through the old one, or should I fo­cus on clar­ity and sweep any com­plex­ities of the old idea un­der the rug?

I imag­ine that at least some of the peo­ple read­ing this ques­tion have an ob­vi­ous an­swer in mind: “just re­lentlessly rewrite, don’t worry about the cur­rent ideas”. That an­swer would be helpful for me to hear, but more helpful would be if you have any ad­vice on spe­cific rhetor­i­cal strate­gies I could use in this situ­a­tion.

No answers.
No comments.