[EM] Droop as a Religious Belief
David Catchpole
s349436 at student.uq.edu.au
Wed Nov 24 22:13:48 PST 1999
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Craig Carey wrote:
> 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?.
Where it's a choice between a crowd of people and a small herd of
lemmings, which do you pick? Remember (and yes, there's that word again)-
you're talking to an aggro lefty here who knows how it is _not_ to be in
the "mainstream," per se. Numbers are not _the_ measure of rationality,
but they do give a nice rule of thumb. Taking my approach from a belief
that at least 90% of this list are not loonies when it comes to voting
systems, I can dignify the things the majority agree on with what could be
called academic precedent.(more further down)
>
> >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]
Can you recall how many were to be elected? (more further down)
. 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").]
'Ay! When I say remember, it imputes absolute truth! No-one dare disagree!
Anyway- I'd really appreciate it if you gave your justifications for why
you identify my "remember" lists as wrong...(more further down)
>
>
> ...
> >
> >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).
Huh? The thing is that I've identified _why_ the "axioms" (incorrect use,
goddamit! An axiom is a statement of intuitive, basic truth, such as
Euclid's axioms. You're thinking about "principle" or "condition!") that
Davison (Davison?) has been using to highlight some imperitive superiority
of Hare over Droop are baseless and have no real imperitive apart from
that of attempting to nag the Droop camp into some type of
percieved submission.(more further down)
> 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 can't see clearly what the objection is. No, cases where A is in OW are
covered by (i) (and I fail to see why this is objectionable). (i) and (ii)
without (iii) simply comprise IIA. The addition of (iii) adds an extra of
admissable results. In other words- IIA implies NSR, NSR does not imply
IIA. (more further down)
> 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
I'm afraid I'm one of those terrible anti-civil people who reckon
everything should be out in the open. I believe our private
misunderstandings are best broadcast. (more further down)
> 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.
>
Well-um, I'll just bite my tongue... Maybe a personality profile of each
by the other will be necessary to allow us to know where we're getting
stuck.(more further down)
>
> 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.)
Grrr! Say A comes 2nd on a ballot paper and B comes 7th- A is "ranked
over" B! Where's the difficulty????? Say a voter prefers A over B-
A is "ranked over" B. What's the problem???? Grrrrr! Grrrrrr! Grrrrrr!
Fume! I suggest that you look at Arrow's "Social choice and individual
values" and pay close attention to the use of "R" and "P"!(more further
down, if I avoid an aneurism)
>
>
> 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.
Um- D's my pet name for the Deadly Duo of "D"s on this list, if you get my
gist. (?)(more further down)
>
> ...
> >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.
Like most right wing parties, National and ACT have their greatest success
in geographically distinct "conservative areas." Now- for the "first
stage" of the MMP process- that is, the election of electorate members,
if FPTP is used and both National and ACT run in the same seat then
there's a good chance that the vote will be split- neither will be the
"majority" and the seat will go to the Left (yay!). Now-
(i) ACT could be in deep doodoo if they fail to win any electorate seats.
If they fail to do this and also fail to make minimum quota they will be
doubly splitting the vote. Remember (there it is again) that coalition
agreements are reciprocal- I don't stand in yours, you don't stand in
mine.
(ii) National is a big party, and as MMP generally involves putting
(heavy) restraints on the number of "top up members" ("second stage"), it
may well, if ACT doesn't split the vote, end up with a better turnout in
the chamber than it did in votes.
(iii) Similarly, if ACT's vote is concentrated just right, they can win
many more seats in the first stage than would have been given to them in
the second if they had not stood in the electorate seats
(iv) This is a feature of MMP which is irritating
one of the D's- MMP can be used by a voter to vote for one party of
their persuasion for one ballot and for another for the second. As a
result, their vote is counted twice, effectively. It's a nasty trick-
particularly, it amplifies the votes of minor party supporters by having
them vote for one of the two major parties in the electorate ballot (and
helping their over-representation a-la (ii) ) and voting for their
fave minor party on the "top-up" ballot. Please note that this is a point
against splitting behaviour in electorates- This works best when the minor
party doesn't stand in the electorate seat. A minor-minor voter is not as
powerful (and therefore less useful to the bloc)as a major-minor voter,
who, as well as contributing to the number of Nationals elected in
electorate seats, also contributes to the number of ACTers.
I mean, I do understand why you'd be offended by my statement as a member
of a minor party, one that regularly has to make a judgement call on
splitting votes, but hey!
>
> 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
>
>
-------------------------------------------
Nothing is foolproof given a talented fool.
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list