[EM] It's as simple (and subjective) as that: I feel that the Condorcet Criteria is important

Craig Carey research at ijs.co.nz
Sun Nov 12 19:38:50 PST 2000

The Single Transferable Vote mailing list:

I have online a derivation of the 1/3 quota that the 3 candidate
Alternative Vote would be improved by if it had it. I suggest
that people browsing over to that page compare it with this page
which a page by the list owner on the basically unusable Condorcet



This is a private message of Rob Lanphier copied to the mailing

I appealed to Rob Lanphier to get answers from Mr Mike Ossipoff,
a current subscriber. The questions were two in number and easy
and Mr Lanphier rejecting my questions. One question was for a
probability of the {99, 1} election where the candidate with
99% of the vote lost. Another was a request (to Rob Lanphier) for
a statement by Mike Ossipoff on what was on Approval Voting papers.

Rob would have to get the requests to Mike Ossipoff to satisfy me.

He can do that by posting to the mailing list. This is what the whole
dispute is over. Mr Rob Lanphier refuses to post to the mailing
list, and untruth and subscribers' ongoing suffering was being
protected. To properly inquire into the list owner's mistakes, I
would have to demand that he, not Mike Ossipoff, respond to
questions. I just had one failure. I guess that in a couple of
weeks from now, if not sooner, Mike Ossipoff will be starting up
again. I won't be subscribed to read it all.


At 12:00 12.11.00 -0800 Sunday, Rob Lanphier wrote:
 >I put your list in ages ago.  I put it in the STV category.
 >You have yet to convince *me* that Mike's positions on issues are
 >unreasonable.  Given that, and given that I have a stated time and time
 >again that the dispute between Mike and yourself is for you to work out.

What are "Mike's positions"?. It has no real contact with the significant
message I wrote to the list owner. Does anybody believe I would dispute
something as vague as "Mike's positions"?. I presume few could believe
that. So why the introduction of irrelvant material that would tend to
create a dispute between me and Rob Lanphier?.

I was not aware of ever having received from the owner, any information
at all that stated that the problem between me and Mike and we need to
work it out. In any case, any such a response is out of date, unless the
owner believed that the "code of conduct" provided no rights at all to
me to have questions answered, or there is some error in the reasoning,
(e.g. positive discrimination to prevent the free flow of information.)

I did not request in my message any constraint on Mr Ossipoff other
than having the question answered.

The rules Rob drafted can act against lying and deliberate evasion on
a simple matter than can be written on easily. I don't want to bias
people to a particular conclusion. For example, Rob might just write
off lengthy detailed letters with brief dismissals that fail to state
that anything of the original message had been read.

I try to read my e-mail and I own the list of

 >I prefer Condorcet variants because I feel that the Condorcet Winner
 >Criteria is very important.  It's as simple (and subjective) as that.  I
 >give rather lukewarm support to Approval becuase it's a much more
 >mechanically simple method that approximates a Condorcet outcome in many
 >You are (obviously) free to have a list where you exert control over the
 >content of the list.  Fine.  You run your list, I'll run mine.  Okay?

How I run my list is not a matter that is relevant. I did not introduce
comments that would have led to that response. It is essentially a
statement of some desire based intent to be secretive about reasoning
by asserting lists are separate. It is unnecessary to comment on my list
as if suggesting I assert control there. I asked Rob Lanphier to ask 2
questions to Mike Ossipoff. It is too emotive and obscure for me at this
time, to understand the words:

        "Fine.  You run your list, I'll run mine.  Okay?"

It seems to be constructed basis for not ditching his own policy. Are the
online rules going to change?. This is a discrimination on the basis of
whether a subscriber has a mailing list of their own?. It is as dumb as
it looks. I just wanted facts that could allow me to get a small amount
of understanding.

I don't know where the idea of "exert control" came from.
I presume Rob is trying to say there is "no control" here. That are
problems with incessant lying. The list owner deals with that with a
no control policy. So this list could age much faster than other lists
around it. It is already has the wisdom of a geriatrics club.

(I suggested that I though Rob had not added the STV list URL to the
www.dmoz.org directory while believing that, which was wrong.)

That matter was dealt with to my satisfaction and I thank Rob for the
time put into that.

One this is sent I will unsubscribe from the Election Methods list.

We can see how long Mr Craig Layton keeps writing for.

 >On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Craig Carey wrote:

I warned Rob I would reply, just to get him to write a better quality
message that wasn't personal.

 > I will report back to your list on whether rules are a fantasy.
 > I.e., your actions over the two questions for Mike Ossipoff.
You can see there that I counted the number of questions that Rob was
to make progress over. It was two questions.

 > I asked this question to Mike Ossipoff:
 > >To Mr Mike Ossipoff: what is the probability of this election example
 > >occurring?
 > >
 > > >   99 ABCDEFGHIJ
 > > >    1 J
 > NOTE!!. That is a question that is very much a question that
 > ought be answered. He stated that there is a probability, without
 > knowing the country or era. It is going back a way, but historical
 > data is that Mike Ossipoff is doesn't seem to adapt opinions.

This looks like an easy question to respond to.

Mike Ossipoff believed that candidate J should win.
Never once (to my recollection) did Mike Ossipoff say that the
"ABCDEFGHIJ" represented selections made with checkboxes.
There is argument below showing that Mr Ossipoff believed that Approval
did not receive checkbox papers. That disagrees with what other people

Mr Mike Ossipoff also corresponded with me privately, this year,
again claiming to have a probability he was unable to provide.
A proof was never provided too:


At 03:03 10.10.00 +1300 Tuesday, Craig Carey wrote:
 >Mike, I don't see any reasons there in the above. I presume you claimed
 >that they exist and they never ever have.
 >I request the 'demonstration', or better still, a proof for the claim
 >that the Tideman(wv) method passes "GSFC & SDSC". Tideman is a
 >defined method and it is defined at the website of Mr Cretney. The
 >2 rules that would test it certainly do not appear to be defined.

At 21:26 10.10.00 +1300 Tuesday, Craig Carey wrote:
 >Has anybody got a proof that Mike Ossipoff is not lying when he says
 >that GSFC and SDSC pass the Tideman(wv) method?.
 >Mike is giving dud references out to nowhere since he wrote this as if
 >Here are the definitions of GSFC and SDSC (and I ask Mr Ossipoff to note
 >that or say that is strictly untrue):
 >As I said before, Mike seems to have no proofs. It is not good enough

The proof would take pages. It can't possibly exist because
Mike Ossipoff's GSFC and SDSC are undefined. Mike always denied that.

Would the list owner be backscratching with Mike Ossipoff over
the scandal of the absence of the proofs that Tideman passed GSFC and
the SDSC.

Can Mike Ossipoff reply to all of my questions, and also give the
reasoning for the currently existing failures to reply. How many
questions does it take. The ideas of Mike are bad and don't adapt
and they Mike Ossipoff does not reply to any of my questions.



I wanted to make it easy for Mike so I particularlised the request:

 > >
 > >I ask that Mike Ossipoff tell the mailing list what is visible on
 > >[his] Approval Vote ballot papers. This is of great importance, e.g.
 > >the to question of whether Approval Vote was always a really
 > >misnamed hoax designed to irritate the Internet and the list.
 > >
 > >Especially these matters are asked about:
 > >
 > >  (a) checkboxes vs. indications of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.
 > >
 > >  (b) a statement on how many marks [subvotes] can be made on the
 > >     [Mike Ossipoff style] Approval Voting papers.
 > >
 > >
 > >I remind Demorep to answer my questions too. They were good questions

Demorep was asked about truncation resistance: No reply was made.
It seemed like a very simple question.

These rules are ignored by the list owner:

 >Code of Conduct
 >Please come prepared to defend the statements that you make, and to
 >directly answer the questions that others ask of you. This list was
 >set up to increase communication between people interested in new
 >forms of election methodology, not as a sounding board for those who
 >wish to drown out opposing views with prolific repetition of statements
 >already made. When conflicts arise, please use this list to understand
 >fully why the other side feels the way they do by honest intellectual
 >inquiry. And when those who feel differently than you are trying to
 >understand why you feel the way you do, please answer as honestly and
 >directly as possible.
 >Hopefully this is all common sense, but sadly not common enough (hence
 >the reason for this message). In summary, please ask, answer, and be

The list owner sided with Mike Ossipoff over his refusal to say what
was on his Approval Vote ballot papers, and also over his refusal to
give to me and the list, the never known probability. Rob Lanphier is
not interested on why Candidate A loses with 99% of the Vote. Rob L.
likes the Approval Vote even though it will elect candidate A when it
has 99% of the first preference Vote. Is that the Ossipoff Approval

 >I give rather lukewarm support to Approval becuase it's a much more
 >mechanically simple method that approximates a Condorcet outcome in many

Many of the subscribers would discard Mr Ossipoff's beliefs and use their
own ideas and ignore Mike Ossipoff.

Rob Lanphier disregarded the lists's rules. Why?:

* Mike Ossipoff has been writing about the Approval Vote between
   19 February 2000 and 10 November 2000. A total of 70 messages
   had been sent. If there are 40 subscribers (I presume the
   figure is fast declining), then when everyone receives 2,800
   messages of what is typically very inferior material, on the so
   called "Approval Vote". Suppose 70% of the subscribers read
   their messages. That is 1960 messages being read. My right to
   question on what is printed on the (real or imagined) Approval
   Vote papers is rejected on the grounds that it is personal
   matter. The issues of control, if that is to be believed, more
   important that having an badly defined idea read by subscribers
   in maybe 1960 messages reading events. What is the principle for

   This "working out a dispute" seems to be presuming that the rules
   are of no value or must be ignored:

 >You have yet to convince *me* that Mike's positions on issues are
 >unreasonable.  Given that, and given that I have a stated time and time
 >again that the dispute between Mike and yourself is for you to work out.

Why would the list owner want to be convinced on those unknown matters
when I only asked for Mr Lanphier to obtain the answers from Mike
Ossipoff. I never raised questions over unreasonable issues.

* If 1,960 subscribers can be deprived of a right to have the policy
   of the EM list protect them, then isn't this a list that no
   mayor would want to have formulating policy for them?.

* Rob Lanphier did not admit receiving any appeal from me under
   the rules of his list. Why is that ?.

* In fact I made two appeals ([1] what is on the papers, and [2] what
   is the improbability of the 99-1 election occurring). Mr Lanphier
   did not acknowledge that two requests had been discovered.

* There was no statement of reasoning. The rules use the idea
   "common sense" rather than a test of what is "reasonable".

* Mr Rob Lanphier is defending the right of subscribers to read 1960
   messages but to be deprived of the answer to the question I
   asked: has Mike Ossipoff got such a bad understanding of the
   Approval Vote that people would themselves, have to regard that
   it does not exist?. No need to guess.

   This is what Rob Lanphier says: "please use this list to understand
   fully why the other side feels the way they do".

   My feeling is that the list is run as if cleaners had taken control
   of the FOI division of the CIA HQ. Secrecy rules at least where truth
   is needed is sought. They don't breed tiny little 1-winner brain size
   hard to breed roaches that are vulnerable to swift CVD centaur hoof
   trample events. Mr Ossipoff for one has adapted, I deduced, by hardly
   ever seriously trying to promote some Approval method to a council.
   [others can check this last sentence for me]

   Strangely, Rob said:

   "You are (obviously) free to have a list where you exert control
    over the content of the list.  Fine.  You run your list, I'll
    run mine.  Okay?"

   What sort of real threat would questioning by Rob Lanphier present
   to Mike Ossipoff?. Rob poses a threat to such an extent that 2
   easy questions must be e-mailed by the owner (moderator) to Mike
   Ossipoff. Mr Ossipoff does not write to me or reply to me ever.
   No matter what error I pointed out in private, I don't recall my
   many points being attended to or his errors being fixed.

   If I answer yes or no to the "Okay", I still do not get the
   information requested.

   Rob has made a decision to withhold information from all

   Mike Ossipoff did not defend the 99--1 Approval exmaple by
   saying it was just a checkbox method. He made a response to
   Demorep that is consistent with the respondent believing that the
   method is a preferential voting method that received papers like

   This is the leader of the [presumed by me to not exist] Approval
   movement. It is likely that few of the 70 messages Mike Ossipoff
   wrote about the Approval Vote method, were about the method that
   others believed in, rather than the method he believed in.

   Rob Lanphier did not admit that his dismissal without reasons of
   my request to have my questions answered was understood. This is
   the grounds for the decision to not investigate as I had

   "You have yet to convince *me* that Mike's positions on issues
    are unreasonable."

   The list owner confided to me that at about the beginning of the
   year, or last year, that he did not read the messages the list
   was sending. That had lasted for over a year. Regarding the
   word "unreasonable", it is reasonable that the so called Approval
   method can receive checkbox papers, and I had argued to Mike
   Ossipoff that being a mathematical method it can receive STV
   papers. So either of the 2 likely answers (checkbox or STV papers)
   would be reasonable. Why is Rob Lanphier expecting me to show that
   I ought be able to find Mike Ossipoff's position "unreasonable"
   before I have even got the answer to the question.

   If the ideas of truth seeking in the "code of conduct" were
   regarded more highly by Rob Lanphier, the list might better
   understand what Mike Ossipoff imagines the Approval Vote to be.

   Once/if the list gets the answer on the 'what's on the ballot paper
   question'it may remain up to date for many years.

Mr Ossipoff made a decision to not reply to this request.

 > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > >
 > >
 > >                         * QUESTION TO MIKE *
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >This is to Mr Mike Ossipoff.
 > >
 > >I request under the guidelines of this mailing list, this question:
 > >
 > >To Mr Mike Ossipoff: what is the probability of this election example
 > >occurring?
 > >
 > > >   99 ABCDEFGHIJ
 > > >    1 J
 > >
 > >What is the probability. You had a method in May 2000 of saving the
 > >Approval Vote by saying that bad examples were improbable. We asked
 > >for the probability and you evaded answering while not writing nothing.
 > >
 > >
 > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This the other appeal I made to Rob Lanphier in the last 12 hours:

 > -------------------------------
 > may lose good list members, beyond a doubt).
 > I asked Mike Ossipoff to describe well what appears on the
 > Approval Vote papers.
So Mike and Rob, please ensure that this question is answered.

I have this figured out, and this is partly guessing. if any wants
truth here, the mailing list owner will regard it as an issue of
control, futility of dealing with liars [cowardice?], and the right
to assert actual desire while brazenly omiting all reasoning.

I wrote to Rob saying I would report back, so this msg is slightly
expected, unless he never read my message.

 >I prefer Condorcet variants because I feel that the Condorcet Winner
 >Criteria is very important.  It's as simple (and subjective) as that.

That particular method fails with 2 or more candidates.
It also fails to perform when there is 1 candidate and enough winners.

Can the list be told of a number of candidates when Condorcet gets
too unacceptable. Each different Condorcet theorist/advocate would
have different numbers. It is just too dumb to think about but Rob
Lanphier is one of the ones that believes in that. If that sentence
started a bit of a disagreement, lets resolve it: Over what rough
range of candidates between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
does Condorcet shift from becoming a usable method to one that is
not useful?. Condorcet would not be picking the right winner for
large elections.

Rob noted: "I feel that the Condorcet Winner Criteria is very
important. It's as simple (and subjective) as that."

How can the gravity and import of the essence of the idea be
accessed while the statement is trapped after an "I feel"?. What
is the point of writing "I feel" anyway?. I don't want to know.


>Now here read Mike Ossipoff's reply in defence of what seems to me to
>be the world's lead credible preferential voting method that gets
>advocated in this mailing list.
>At 05:37 01.06.00 +0000 Thursday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>>>D- How about the probability of the below ???
>>>2 AJ
>>>1 J
>>In the above example, the A voters are voting for their last
>>choice, something that no one would ever have any reason to do
>>in Approval.

Mike Ossipoff wrote: "the last choice". He would therefore be thinking
that the Approval method is a preferential method receiving STV style
papers. How is it possible to have a last choice when the papers are
checkbox papers. Does the "Mike Ossipoff Approval Vote" method receives
checkbox papers, or STV style papers?.

If this opinion papers are preferential in nature is an error, then when
did Mike Ossipoff first make that error?.

>that calculated the Approval Vote winner. Mike Ossipoff told the list
>in May that his 'roaches wouldn't do that. What if one was in pain, or

That is an error. Mike never admitted to keeping cockroaches

>couldn't think with clarity?.


I will defer a decision on whether or not I will complain using
the list's complaints procedures. What is the long term purpose
of this mailing list?.

E-mail: Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz>  (backup terratope at yahoo.com)
Auckland, NZ. |  Snooz Metasearch: http://www.ijs.co.nz/info/snooz.htm

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list