Fwd: [EM] Catchy goes Taxi Driver (watch my slow descent into frustration and brutality, prompted by the madness of another!)

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I said I wasn't going to reply to anything from Craig that's more
than 2K, and I intend to keep to that policy. But, since it's been
a while, I think I'll briefly reply to a few statements here:

Craig said:

 > > Quoting from a Demorep message:
 > >
 > >  >Mr. Ossipoff wrote in part-
 > >  >
 > >  > The problem is when all that a certain majority agrees on is
 > >  > that there's someone whom they don't want to elect
 > >
 > > How does Mike know, when he wasn't e-mailed all the details?. It

Craig, I don't claim to know what everyone else wants, if that's
what you're asking. The point is that a majority can gain any
outcome they want, and it's regrettable that, when that want is
the nonelection of someone, they must use drastically insincere
strategy, with some or most methods. But cheer up, Craig, there
are a few methods that don't have that problem.

 >
 >What? I see a statement by Mike Ossipoff, apparently in original context

Well, Craig left out some of the context--the part about how a
majority can get any outcome it wants, at least unless the method
is Borda, and I'm concerned about what that majority has to do
in order to gain that outcome, when it's the nonelection of some
candidate.


 >and well like a statement you would expect Mike to make without external
 >reference.

If the statement that
Craig quoted lacks external reference, might that not be because
Craig quoted it without its full context?

Was Craig suggesting that there was some external thing that
I should have referred to, but didn't? External to what?

 >Mike believes in something called the "lesser evil." Then I see

Well it isn't so much that _I_ believe in it. It's just that
everyone voting in this country seems to believe in it. Myself
I don't believe that Gore's evil is any lesser than Bush's.
My concern is that everyone's voting seems to be dominated by
a need to defeat some "greater evil", by electing a "lesser-evil",
by abandoning their favorite.

That's the problem that my & Steve's criteria are about. Insincere
strategy needed in order to defeat a perceived "greater evil".

Craig said:

 > > I wrote that society is not a part of voting theory.
 > > Why is Mike Ossipoff so very distant from rejecting the notion that
 > > humans can be referred to when taking about voting methods. It is
 > > a cover bullshitting. I want to suggest to YOU that a right view  > > 
is

Craig wants me to reject the notion that humans can be referred to
when talking about voting methods. It isn't clear who Craig thinks
is voting, or whose interests & concerns we should be interested in,
if not those of humans. Not that I claim that Craig should be
concerned about those things just because I am. But it would seem
that Craig believes that I shouldn't care about those concerns
because he doesn't.

But I don't say that Craig's above-quoted attitude is original with
him. Maybe Craig has just explained why the academics generally
don't seem interested in the standards that concern actual voters.

But though I may not agree with the priorities or goals of most
academics, I wouldn't insult them by counting Craig among them.
I merely mean that he may have copied their style and jargon, and
verbalized their values more frankly than they usually do, in
the above quoted statement by Craig.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.