Democratic symmetry (fwd)

[Blake Cretney]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, DEMOREP1 at aol.co wrote:
> Prof. Saari wrote (9 Mar 2000)--
> 
>     In this same spirit, please do not run into the silly mistake
> (as someone on that web site did) of thinking that I am concerned about
> adding or subtracting voters.  My approach is equivalent to handling an 
> algebra
> problem -- to solve it, you have to factor and decompose it.  To handle
> the data problem, decompositions -- which involve subtracting certain 
> groups of data sets -- are needed.  To keep the description somewhat within 
> reason, I construct examples by adding data.  But, think of this as a reverse 
> decomposition of starting with a given data set.  (Elsewhere, such as in
> my books, I do address adding or subtracting voters -- but this is to
> study strategic behavior, what happens if a voter doesn't vote, what 
> happens when a like-minded group joins, etc.)
> ---
> D- I mention again- adding or subtracting votes is commonly called election 
> fraud (aka stuffing the ballot box and/or vote stealing).

You have missed the point.  When Saari talks about adding or subtracting votes, he does not believe that anyone will add or subtract votes in a real election.  He believes that certain combinations of votes shouldn't matter, and that therefore the result should be unchanged if they are removed.  You can disagree with him, but don't just say that this would be election fraud and think you have dealt with the argument.

 
> I note again- 
> majority > minority
> and
> minority < majority
> (i.e. NO symmetry).

You are simply using the same word, "symmetry", in an entirely different context.  It's like saying you don't want a preferential ballot because you don't approve of preferential treatment.

> D- I mention again- 

Most of your posts begin with an admission that you are repeating yourself.  Sometimes you admit that you have repeated the same comment many times.  What is your conclusion?

1.  Despite the many, many repetitions, no one has yet read your argument.
2.  We have read it, but we forgot it, and need reminding.
3.  We have read it, and disagree, but perhaps will be convinced though endless repetition.

I do not need reminding of your beliefs that:

1 Every election should have YES/NO votes.
2 Criteria worded to compare the results of two elections under different circumstances are invalid because elections aren't held twice.
3 Criteria worded to say that certain votes shouldn't have an effect aren't invalid because this is ballot stuffing/stealing.

At least the first is arguable.  The second two are just misunderstandings.

---
Blake Cretney