[EM] 12/19/02 - `Mikeo the man of many Typos'

[Narins, Josh]

Alex, AMEN!

I think Craig and Donald are on to us.

Our scam, which we have been carefully planning since 1283 AD/CE, is to make
sure that our candidate, who for now must remain nameless, wins in 2032 with
our devious tactic of having "garbage" vote.  We are currently en-grossed in
registering most toxic wastedumps and landfills as we speak.

A Condorcet Totalitarian will gain absolute power, and end Arrow's Conundrum
forever by declaring elections unneccessary!

MUAH HA HA!


-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Small [mailto:asmall at physics.ucsb.edu] 
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 12:46 PM
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [EM] 12/19/02 - `Mikeo the man of many Typos'


Donald said:
> Mike Ossipoff wrote:
>
> In my most recent message, the following passage was accidentally left 
> in after it had been discovered to be incorrect:
>
> "(In ordinary Approval, the fact that the Dems are more numerous than 
> the Nader people means that the Dem candidates will outscore them)."

Yes, but Mike then wrote:
>Of course if the Dems & Nader coalition vote for eachother's 
>candidates, then both coalition's candidates will get the same vote 
>total in ordinary Approval, just as thet get the same score in CS 
>Approval.

For the sake of precision, Mike said that there is a "razor-edge case" where
Nader and the Dem receive the same number of votes.  He never said that this
is a likely outcome, but to be as accurate and precise as possible he wanted
to include that case.  It reveals clear thinking on Mike's part, not a
delusion.

> In the real world the Dem candidates will outscore the Nader people, 
> even in an Approval Voting election.

Mike never denied that that is by far the most likely outcome.

> Mikeo and his cohorts refuse to accept the fact that many voters 
> refuse to make lower choices.  Our Australian friend on this list has 
> already told us that in real IRV elections in his country, many voters 
> refuse to make lower choices.

If this is indeed true, then it suggests that lower choices can hurt your
favorite in IRV.  I don't believe that lower choices can hurt your favorite
in IRV, but you seem to be arguing that above.  So, who is making the
contradictory statements here?

> In spite of this truth, Mikeo keeps his blinders on
> and goes his merry way believing that the foolish Dem voters are all 
> going to march lockstep and vote for Nader as their second choice.

Mike has never suggested that all Dem voters will vote for Nader as well. 
He merely said that strictly speaking, to enumerate all possible outcomes,
he should mention that case.  There is a difference between all POSSIBLE
outcomes and all PLAUSIBLE outcomes.

Indeed, Approval Voting supporters are not contending that all Dems will
vote for Nader.  Most people on this list contend that in a race with Bush,
Gore, and Nader, we have a 1-D political spectrum.  Gore is the median
candidate on that spectrum.  Whether he's closer to Bush, closer to Nader,
or right in the middle is a separate issue, but as the median candidate he
is the one most likely to win in Approval.

However, we believe that because Approval makes it possible for all
candidates _with widely accepted ideas_ to compete, our elections will
quickly become multidimensional.  Besides the standard left and right, we
will see fiscally conservative/socially liberal candidates, or fiscally
liberal/socially conservative.  There will be a broader range of ideas out
there.  Approval can handle these types of situations quite nicely by homing
in on the median (the candidate closest to the median on each issue).

Anyway, I look forward to your next message contending that Approval Voting
is just a conspiracy to elect unpopular candidates.  You can join Craig
Carey on the roster of paranoia, since he believes that I do nothing but lie
and I go to this list to get an "Amen!" from other liars.



Alex


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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers.  Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.  Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such.  All information is subject to change without notice.


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