[EM] Fwd: RE: ethics of wv vs m

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Demorep:

I may have come across inappropriately argumentative in part
of my reply:

DR says:

Mr. Ossipoff wrote-

So let's have a good reason for which defeat we drop. Let's
minimize the number of people whom we overrule, if we have to
disregard an expressed opinion of the voters.
---
D- Such is the reasoning of the pro-IRV folks (even when there is a
Condorcet
Winner with the lowest number of first choice votes--- my earlier
Hitler-Stalin-Washington examples).

Mike comments now:

I know that you understand that we're talking about 2 quite
different kinds of opinions. You're talking about the opinion
of someone that X is the best, and shouldn't be eliminated.
I'm talking about someone's opinion that X is better than Y.
Quite different.

As for the opinion that you're talking about: Someone believes
that, because X is the best, he shouldn't be eliminated. But
who said that anyone should be eliminated in the first place?
IRV's rules? I don't doubt that IRV can be "justified" by its
own rules. That's an arbitrary thing to do. Why is dropping
a pairwise defeat different? Because it's obvious that a cycle
is the only thing keeping the pairwise count from pointing to
a clear obvious winner. Anyone whom we elect (regardless of
what kind of method it is) we're violating a pairwise vote
result of the people. So there's nothing arbitrary or high-handed
about saying we have to drop one, or disregard one. Disregarding
a publicly-voted pair-defeat is inevitable if we elect anyone,
by any method. Again, IRV's rule to eliminate someone is
arbitrary.

Oh you could say that anytime we elect someone we're eliminating
everyone else. But where, from that, do you get IRV's arbitrary
formula for the order of the eliminations? Where do you get that
we should eliminate them one at a time? And if I've ranked X
first, do you really think that all my ranking is saying is that
I don't want X eliminated? That's an odd interpretation of a ranking,
only honoring its 1st choice, and designing a procedure based
on that peculiarly selective & arbitrary look at what someone's
ranking is saying.

Mike said earlier:

Wouldn't that be nice if that were the reasoning of the IRVies.
Then they'd be Condorcetists.

Or are you saying that dropping the weakest defeat is the same
as dropping the candidate with fewest 1st choice votes? If so,
would you post a proof of that, or an argument for it?

Mike now says:

I'd assumed that you meant that Condorcet acts like IRV.
But you know that Condorcet is as opposite from IRV as a method
could be. So you didn't mean that. You meant that the way I
worded that is similar to what IRVies say in praise of IRV,
with the result that, when explained that way, Condorcet might
be well-accepted by people who previously were under the influence
of IRVies. Yes, I agree with you on that.

Mike Ossipoff


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com