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

[David Catchpole]

For feck's sake people, can we stop bagging voting theorists who get paid
for what they do, and start reading their work? They may be part of the
dreaded orthodoxy, but their ideas have more validity than the bullshit we
usually chug out and this is indicated by their recognition by academic
circles. As someone whose desire is to join their ranks sometime over the
next 20 years, I feel that they're not getting a fair run from this
list. Take things on their merits. Not on prejudices. If you're going to
bag someone, read their work and attempt to understand what they're
saying. When I say "Steven Brams and Donald Saari are wrong" I feel
confident that I've taken steps to find out _how_ they're
wrong. Pant. Pant. Huff. Pant. Wheeze.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart
enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important"
							-Eugene McCarthy