Solutions by SF recognizes that to successfully work with our clients, we must form a partnership to understand their vision, craft a custom plan outlining their specific needs, and keep key milestones consistently aligned and moving forward. While no two clients have the exact same experience, we strive to ensure every client receives quality service and attention. Solutions by SF is dedicated to our clients’ growth, offering targeted services for bothindividuals and organizations.
Solutions by SF delivers comprehensive professional development coaching in the areas of career transitions for those looking to change industries, attend a graduate program, or transition to a different role within their current field.
Solutions by SF also provides executive and leadership coaching to professionals who are currently looking to strengthen their approach to strategy; developing their teams of employees to reach higher levels of performance, increased job satisfaction, and personal growth; and successfully dealing with changes that arise in their organization, such as resolving difficult interactions or management of stakeholders and c-suite executives.
Solutions by SF works to define and execute their growth strategy. With extensive expertise in capacity building via human capital and operations processes, we will partner with you to develop a plan that enables your organization to maintain its vision and quality execution as your business expands.
I demonstrate that a set of well-known objections defeat John Stuart Mill’s plural voting proposal, but do not defeat plural voting as such. I adopt the following as a working definition of political equality: a voting system is egalitarian if and only if departures from a baseline of equally weighted votes are normatively permissible. I develop an alternative proposal, called procedural plural voting, which allocates plural votes procedurally, via the free choices of the electorate, rather than according to a substantive standard of competence. The alternative avoids standards objections to Mill’s proposal. Moreover, reflection on the alternative plural voting scheme disrupts our intuitions about what counts as an egalitarian voting system. Undue emphasis on Mill’s version of plural voting obscures three important reasons to reject plural voting in favor of strictly egalitarian voting systems: (1) that certain choices that generate inequalities of political power are morally impermissible; (2) that even chosen inequalities may undermine the potential epistemic benefits of democratic decision-making; and (3) that such choices may undermine citizens’ commitments to democracy understood as a joint project.