[EM] CVD wants Alt.V to be fairer but it isn't: misleading website

[Craig Carey]

Is that all that is possible here ? -- for years you were writing on
and around some  of "independence of clones" thing, seemingly without
ever giving a definition. Finally it all ends up now with a withholding
without any comment on why that might be. Is there anything else you
do not want to place on the records for historians that read this
list.


At 02\12\18 22:00 +0200 Wednesday, Markus Schulze wrote:
 >Dear Craig,
 >
 >you wrote (19 Dec 2002):
 >> Mr Schulze wanted a clear question : here is one: is that
 >> proportionality inside of the topic of preferential voting:
 >>   (a) implied by the given clones rule, or
 >>   (b) implying that rule, or
 >>   (c) fully or partly replacing it.
 >
 >"Independence from clones" has been defined only for
 >single-winner elections. "Proportionality" has been
 >defined only for multi-winner elections. Therefore,
 >there is no overlap.
 >
 >You wrote (19 Dec 2002):
 >> The 1987 paper referred to by Markus is listed 2nd in
 >> a short list of only 4 documents by that professor.
 >
 >Here is a longer list:
 >http://www.econ.vt.edu/tideman/vita-new-re927.pdf
 >

That was never requested.

Mr Tideman has produced a lot more than 4 papers, and the number
4 is after a long list was reduced in length.

Information held by a third person is not being requested.
To have Mr Schulze imagine that he has excluded himself is not
assisting in this attempt to get the facts of the past reasoning used
by Mr Schulze, into the archives and into the historical records.

Additionally this list has always been one evasiveness was a
persistent problem dogging every inquiry and I was trying to figure
out why Mr Shulze had not quit. Shulze is not going ot lead a reform
movement where it becomes possible to inquire into the historical
facts of the reasoning actually used.

Shulze is withholding by the looks of it. I mainly want the
definition of clones to show both that the reasoning around it can't
stand scrutiny, and to show that Mr Schulze is showing too great
a disregard for the stable popular mathematical idea of
proportionality. The original irritating idea of STV being decided
in favour of, using principles inherently against it, was produced.

I suppose we have made some sort of progress since Mr Schulze has
now nearly eradicated the public possibility that he understands
what proportionality is.

Lets have a look at that more closely: this was written:

     "proportionality is only defined for single-winner elections"

That seems false. Presumably at least 30% of the readers will yet
slip into a protest where they refuse to say that some unnamed
economics professor's definition of proportionality is exactly the
same as Mr Schulze's.

I ask Mr Schulze to never again provide a distant or global definition
of a term when the local definition was sought. I can't say the
"definition that was used" is requested since the typical need is to
prove that there was no reasoning. Normally that is perfectly
understood at the EM list and due to other reasoning of which we
still know very little, evasions result.

I requested local information that was actually part of the argument
and Mr Schulze referred to some remote university person.

Mr Schulze advanced an idea like this (I suppose), when saying that
proportionality is not multiwinner:

    2 <= (Sum i) ( 1 )

It is too dumb to be believe ... a German offers a totally unexplained
extreme limitation for all all readers to slip into, and it would be
productive of the very same ignorance that seems to have enveloped
Markus and trapped for a period of time that is very hard for form
an opinion over. If I sense this right, Markus is trying to say that
in every 1 candidate 1 winner election, a use of a preferential
principles named "proportionality" alone, will not permit the winner
to be found.

I guess that Mr Schulze would want to defend the idea that the
restrictions on the number of winners are real. I invite Mr Schulze
to say nothing on what third persons wrote.

Why would Markus allow a rule of "independence from clones" partly
replace a rule of proportionality was a question I suggesting.

I don't see an answer.

The really unexpectedly rapid trashing by Markus of the concept that
he understood that proportionality was a respected important idea,
was not sought.

The message of Mr Schulze seems to be substantially pointless and
setting and setting an atmosphere of all readers being expected to
know nothing and research into nothing. There were two rules, quite
probably both of which can be defined for any number of candidates.

Without saying why, the idea of no ovrlapping was offered. That
suggestion is placed over the terrain of a total lack of consensus
that we want ignorance producing arbitrary limitations from Germany,
to be clipped into. It is hard to overlook since at the very worst,
if the suggestion is taken up, a person could end up being as the
worst of the persons that will speak up for the Condorcet method.

the very rejection of ideals of historians that Markus has so
clearly on show by the evasions evidenced, devalues the archives
and would encourage the new members to not actually read them,
which could possibly enliven a preference for the ways of
mathematicians (nothing memorised since re-derived on the spot) and
make this list a less hospitable place for persons wanting to get
the reasoning. Mr Cretney once wrote that he did not like my
limiting, the Condorcetian view is incompatible with the rejection
of arbitrarines (done by use of a meta-axiom). Here there was an
suggestion that the number of winners is limited.

[1] Condorcet bias for no known reason that is logical (it is all
    inconsistent with the shadowing of monotonicity) -->

[2] rejection of all that opposes arbitrariness (I ask Markus to
    comment on that lucidly for us) --->

[3] these feeble details advancing, with claims that are unacceptable,
    missing, wihtheld, weak, or whatever. It is like having the content
    of a cupboard above fall over the theorist. In short, more limitations
    than is ever reasonable from those that rejected the narrowness of
    anti-arbitrariness axioms since secretively nurturing a bias that
    Condorcetian pairwise comparing has a capability of actually getting
    it into some respectable modern journal. Soc choice does not seem
    a worth picking up at a hair salon, to me. It would be better to
    read up on Princess Diana.

Mr Schulze does not produce quantifier equations any more than Mr Ossipoff
does (rather, has).


G. A. Craig Carey

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em