[EM] Droop as a Religious Belief

Wed Nov 24 20:23:16 PST 1999

At 12:11 25.11.99 , David Catchpole wrote:
>Better to side with the mainstream than with an irrational cult, D.

Why is it better to side with the mainstream, Mr Catchpole?.

>Remember that Droop has numbers on its side in more ways than one. While
>this may be relying too much on some imputed logic of mob rule (even if
>my mob incorporates the man after whom unfortunately the Hare quota is
>named), remember that as the minority, the onus is on you to demonstrate
>that anything you've said about Hare's superiority has any rational basis.
>You've failed to do so. Despite your and my rhetoric, as Galileo (once the
...
>
>Remember-
...
>*	We've demonstrated that Hare sucks where a single electorate is ...

 I posted an example dated 27-28 Oct that showed that Hare was a bit better
 than Droop [this example: 11:A,20:B,12:CA,11:DA,10:EA,10:FA,10:GA,10:HA,
 10:IA,10:JA,10:KA,09:LA]. I note that the two uses of the word "remember"
 immediately precede what I identify to be incorrect statements.
 [I don't myself know how to argue for the incorrect comments (minorities,
 "some logic", "the onus is on" Davison, demonstrated, superior, "better to
 side with the mainstream").]

...
>
>On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Donald E Davison wrote:
>
>> Greetings,                              11/19/99
>> 
>>      During any `Droop War' ...
...

                                   I  25-Nov-1999
            The onus is upon each readers to repair Mr Catchpoles errors

I have some interesting details on a discrepancy in standards that are expected
 by Mr Catchpole. This is of interest to Mr Davison. I need more data than has
 so far been provided before I could rule out Hare-STV. Let Mr Catchpole first
 say that Hare-STV can't be reviewed in the light of axioms that hold some type
 of particular bias (e.g. perhaps something of use in developing African
 nations).

I wrote the immediate following to Mr Catchpole in the last few days, and I was
 referring to Mr Catchpole's "[EM] "No splitting rule"" message (date 18-19 Nov
 1999):

>> You wrote "A can't be in the NW", and it is also true that consideration
>>  of '(iii)' can be limited to the case when "A is never in the OW"
>>    (provided OW means old winners).
>> It is agreed between us that the idea of yours is without merit, isn't it,
>>  given the 2nd problem with the word "rank" (which certainly looks unfixable).

Mr Catchpole probably had not realised that (x or y) = (x or (not x) & y), and
 so that is why he had regarded that A could be in "OW". It good enough to say
 that it couldn't be in the old winners (referring to text quoted below).

I now quote from Mr Catchpoles's private reply which I received on 25-Nov-1999.
Mr Catchpole might be uncertain about me doing that, but I believe, with some
 basis for that action, that informing the subscribers of this list about the
 origin of the flow of lazily prepared garbage that flows into the EM list (on
 mathematics and methods), is a matter of public interest. Persons could
 comment on this, e.g. is it an error, if interested.

At 12:40 25.11.99 , David Catchpole wrote:
>Hell no- it came from me, of course it has merit! I would really like you
>to yield a bit over my apparently flawed use of "rank." While I agree that
>my habits needn't be forced on other people, the context in which the
>thing was written should be clear enough that you understand it. Simply
>arguing that the issue has no merit because you fail to want to interpret
>it correctly into your own idiom doesn't have merit itself.

The reply to my comment about the failure to define the word "rank" included
 these words:

    "the context in which the thing was written should be clear enough that
      you understand it"

Mr Catchpole's "rank" idea is too undefined to have merit and that is not
 admitted to. I presume no genius can repair it and get it to survive
 testing by both methods and Mr Catchpole. If the guidelines of the list were
 revered, then any asking for the definition of the word "rank" (pairwise
 comparing between two groups or perhaps scores of candidates) would need to
 be answered.)

Mr Davison was told by Mr Catchpole, this:

   "remember that as the minority, the onus is on you to demonstrate that
    anything you've said about [...]'s superiority has any rational basis"

I was told I lacked desire rather than being stupid or that his theory had
 been taken back to the drawing board:

   "Simply arguing that the issue has no merit because you fail to want to
    interpret it correctly into your own idiom doesn't have merit itself."

Mr Catchpole wrote this of himself:

   "it came from me, of course it has merit! I would really like you to yield a
    bit ...".

Sorry "D", but I can't see how to get to your postion that your idea had merit.

...
>arguing that the issue has no merit because you fail to want to interpret
>it correctly into your own idiom doesn't have merit itself.
>On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Craig Carey wrote:
..
>> At 20:46 23.11.99 , David Catchpole wrote:
..
>> >On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Craig Carey wrote:
>> >> >With the removal of a candidate A, either-
>> >> >(i) A was one of the old winners; or
>> >> >(ii) There's no change; or
>> >> >(iii) Of those who rank some possible combination of winning candidates
>> >> >including A over the old and new winning combinations, at least as many
>> >> >prefer the old winning combination to the new winning combination as
>> >> >prefer the new winning combination to the old winning combination (whew!)
...
>> >A can't be in the NW, obviously- it got removed. So an OW->A transition is
>> >absurd!
...
Mr Catchpole declined to agree that that definition was without any merit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 16:01 25.11.99 , David Catchpole wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
>
>> ACT could decide to go head-to-head with National to increase its own 
>> strength in opposition, turning its back on any co-operative election 
>> campaign, the paper said. 
>
>I [deleted] it when the loony right decide to split the vote! NZ uses FPTP in
>its first stage. Result- less of _either_ ACT or National seats. I ...

New Zealand has an "MMP" proportional representation system: each voter can
 make two votes, one for the party, and one for the candidate. As far as
 seats in the House of Parliament are concerned, there is no vote spliting.
 The party vote ratios do not decide the ratios in the top up fraction,
 they decide the ratios in the entire House (perhaps unless a party wins
 too many electorates).
There is not more than one "stage" in NZ's national elections.

I have a blue National pamphlet here. It says:
 "The only way to get a centre-right government is to give National your
 party vote / A vote for any other party does NOT help National ... If you
 and your family want a forward looking New Zealand with (1) Lower taxes ...
 (7) Stability in health care ... Give National your vote".

The party's support has seriously faded in the 2-3 weeks prior to the
 election, without any good reason, but to some extent because people were
 thinking abouyt National and how little it might do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

EM List home page: http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/cpr/election-methods.html

Craig Carey, 25-Nov-99