[EM] New Voting mailing list: Politicians and Polytopes

[David Catchpole]

egroups has been merging with onelist, so we can expect some
interruptions. By the way,the URL links to a specific archive, which might
be the problem.

On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Craig Carey wrote:

> 
> 
> I am writing to (a) get the topic in the subject field, for
>   browsers o www.egroups.com.
> Also, (b), they are not keeping up to date this list's archive,
>   which is at (and around):
> 
>   http://www.egroups.com/messages/election-methods-list/5293
> 
> 
> I was just writing to Egroups to perk them up to opposing
>   Saudi Arabian official censoring of http://www.egroups.com/.
> 
> I note here that some of Mr Ossipoff's writings could be
>   worse than unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> At 03:12 01.04.00 +0000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>  >EM list--
>  >
> ...
>  >B  Approval  Plurality  IRV  Borda
>  >.4  1.6       1.6        4/3   3
>  >.6  1.6       1.4        4/3   3
>  >.25 1.75      1.75       4/3   3
>  >.75 1.75      1.25       4/3   3
>  >.1  1.9       1.9        4/3   3
>  >.9  1.9       1.1        4/3   3
>  >
>  >***
>  >
>  >Voting sincerely in Approval means voting for all the above-mean
>  >candidates. Just as voting for one's favorite in Plurality
>  >with 0-info is the utility-expectation maximizing strategy,
>  >but is also sincere, that's also true of Approval's above-mean
>  >strategy.
>  >
>  >A sincere voter always does better with Approval than with
>  >IRV. He usually does better with Plurality than with IRV.
>  >He does better with Plurality than with IRV as long as B is
>  >less than 2/3. In other words, he does better with Plurality than
>  >with IRV twice as often as not.
>  >
>  >The formula for the table entry with Plurality is 2-B. With
>  >Approval it's 2-min(B, 1-B).
> ...
>  >Borda does especially well, but, with its uniquely abominable
> ...
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I quote the above because it has almost obviously false in a
>   spot: the comments about sincerity. Sincerity is not found by
>   using some quite linear idea.
> 
> One paragraph is about something inside Approval, and then the
>   conclusion is comparative and it cant be made unless the test
>   can exist outside of Approval. This has been seen before in
>   more than one message. No one in this list would expect Mr
>   Ossipoff to need to criticize methods other than Approval using
>   ideas that barely have plausibility when thought of as applying
>   to methods quite unlike Approval. It seems like a child's
>   religious belief to move outside of the confines of the earlier
>   ideas, but some distortion would be expected anyway since the
>   task of showing the Approval Voting method better than IRV, could
>   be difficult, although so much is not held in common.
> 
> I still have a doubt about uses of the word probability. Probably
>   the authors that wrote on utility theory wrote on little of
>   importance. Mr Schulze could tell us of the light and merit of
>   modern publications on voting theory, e.g. as offset against a
>   simple desire to get the single candidate whose name is there on
>   the paper, into government.
> 
> While Mathematicians can work by the candlelight, it is quite
>   different when numerical data on probabilities is estimated.
>   Mr Ossipoff wrote to me in the last day (after I had been
>   writing) and said 'no data' for probability distributions. Apart
>   from that, how many readers had understood that the entire
>   theory of utility was based upon empirical data?. Rational
>   numbers can't be used any more, and the previous errors will
>   be correct it can be imagined (why not since most readers would
>   do that anyway if they made mistakes all of their own). I haven't
>   read all of the message I got, so far.
> 
> This list has very few subscribers, hasn't it Rob!. I didn't know
>   until I saw that 2 joined mine apart from myself. But that is
>   another story.
> 
> I apologize for the clear wordiness of this. There is just not
>   enough defining, that allows others to take ideas away with them,
>   as if given, or something had been imparted.
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Politeness be sugared, politeness be hanged,
Politeness be jumbled and tumbled and banged.
It's simply a matter of putting on pace,
Politeness has nothing to do with the case.
						Norman Lindsay
						"The Magic Pudding"