Catchpole's RC fails your IIAC

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

You wrote (24 Jan 2002):
>What you'd said was irrelevant, because I didn't say that you
>were wrong about RC passing IIAC because RC isn't a voting
>system. I merely said that RC isn't a voting system. That's
>something that I said last time, and which you seem to have
>missed.

The fact that you don't consider Random Candidate to be a
"voting system" doesn't mean that we have to stop doing
everything.

I reply:

I didn't say that anyone should stop doing anything. I merely
said that RC isn't a voting system.

Markus continues:

When people still discuss methods and criteria,
then this doesn't mean that they "have missed" what you said
sometime or that everything they discuss was "irrelevant".

I reply:

No, the reason why I said that you missed something was because
you missed the fact that all I'd said was that RC isn't a voting
system, something that you still are missing, judging by your
statements that I quoted above.

As for "irrelevant", all I said was irrelevant was your answer
to an unsaid statement that you were wrong about RC meeting your IIAC
because RC isn't a voting system. I did't say that, or any of the
things that you're replying to. I merely said that RC isn't a voting
system, if a voting system chooses based on votes.

I'd said:

>Adding the new candidate has increased Y's probability of winning,
>given the voting strategy of those lesser-of-2-evils voters.
>
>David Catchpole's RC fails your IIAC.

Markus replied:

Your example only suggests that David Catchpole's Random Candidate
is vulnerable to strategical voting. But it doesn't demonstrate that
it is vulnerable to strategical nomination.

I reply:

What I said was that David Catchpole's RC
fails your IIAC. It does. And RB fails your IIAC too. This isn't
complicated. It isn't open to interpretation. With both methods,
the addition of a new candidate increased the win-probability of
an already-existing candidate, in examples that didn't violate the
premise of your criterion. My examples had some voters who were
using insincere strategy that you didn't expect. But your IIAC
definition doesn't stipulate that no one votes like that. And, when
I asked you, you said that there was no assumption
about voting strategy.

Mike Ossipoff







_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com