We will deliver no mail before its time

[donald at mich.com]

Donald wrote: >>
>> Run-off's answer: We will use no preference before its time.

Mike wrote:>
>And who decides when it's time to count a preference that someonee
>expresses? Right away is the time. By what right do you decide to
>wait before counting a preference, when doing so changes the
>election result by eliminating the compromise that someone hoped
>would beat a last choice?
>
>No, Don, you're still being funny with us. You've arbitrarily chosen
>a slogan from a tv commercial, something that is completely
>irrelevant to this topic. To relate that slogan to this topic
>you'd have to show that the counting of some preferences should
>be delayed. You can't do that, and you were joking again. I have
>to admit that I don't understand why you haven't been dropped
>from this list, so that you can take your comedy act somewhere
>else where it will be more in keeping with some group's purpose.
>
>Mike
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Donald writes:

Dear Method List,

First let me say about Mike: "Me thinks he protests too much". I compose
one line about preferences and Mike goes ballistic. Preferences must be a
chink in Condorcet's armor.

Second: Mike must realize that I am not a member of The House of Condorcet
- I cannot be expected to ape the Condorcet party line. I did qualify the
one line as being from Run-off. In Run-off we will use no preference before
its time - this is not a joke - it is reality.

The pairwise people seem to be addicted to preferences. They must have them
right away - they must have them all - and when they do get them they do
weird things with them that abuse the candidates and in turn the people who
voted for the candidates.

Preferences are a sore spot with pairwise people. When it is claimed that
they are doing something improper with the preferences that is the same as
sticking them with a ice pick - Mike is squealing like a stuck pig.

We run-off people go by a rule. You could call it The Abused Contender
Rule. Which states that votes are not to be taken away from a candidate
while that candidate is still a contender - the votes are not even to be
taken away temporality. A candidate is no longer a contender when he
becomes last in the vote tally - but if he is not last he is still a
contender. When a candidate is no longer a contender he is dropped and his
votes go to the next preference of the voters but not before - we use no
preference until its time. Condorcet violates this rule.

My vision of future single seat elections contains no primary. Which would
mean that there could be eight candidates running for governor of a state.
Think of the abuse this is going to expose with the pairings. In most if
not all the pairs the six candidates dropped will have together a majority
of the votes. This majority bloc of votes will be taken away from
contending candidates and given to two candidates that only have a small
minority of the votes to start with - this will take place with most of the
pairs - this is improper use of preferences - the voters deserve better.

Again with his talk about dropping me from this list. This must be the
fourth time (five - but who's counting). Mike's in rare form today.
       "You'll miss me when I'm gone" (from a song)
       "..you won't have me to kick around anymore" (famous farewell quote)

I am going on record with the following statement:
"In spite of Mike's rudness, he should NOT be dropped from this list" (He
is our big frog in our small pond).

Mike does not like my joking around - that is too bad. A joke is like a
"grain of salt" we need to take in order to digest life - Condorcet - and
people like Mike.

Donald,