[EM] Mr. Schulze, please prove you applied some seven M.O. rules

Craig Carey research at ijs.co.nz
Mon Sep 11 18:12:25 PDT 2000



At 00:08 00.09.12 +0000 Tuesday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
...


>>As usual, I note that the adding (or removing) of sincere/ insincere
>>majority/ minority votes is ballot box stuffing (or ballot theft) while
>>looking at the remaining ballots (violation of the secret ballot) is a cute
>>little internet game but highly criminal in real elections for real
>>candidates (and issues).
>>
>>An election method works on ALL of the ballots (and NOT on some of the
>>ballots).
>
>
>Demorep, earlier in your message you spoke of some candidates
>having a "Yes" majority. You didn't look in the ballot-box, did
>you?
>
>Mike Ossipoff

It is that seemingly stupid through a failure to read messages of the
Election Methods list, or sharply cynical and close to admitting that
the rules are based on lies?. I explain that by saying that over half
of Mike's rule sample voters' thoughts, or at least the wording has
them do that. Mike is repeatedly reminded of that.

He tells Demorep he can't access data on papers?. I remind Mike that
data about votes is a parameter to election method formula, and thus
it is something that preferential voting methods can access. It is
internal to the rule. It has no physical units/dimensions. All these
voter sincerity quantities that Mike wants us to believe in will have
physical dimensions. I haven't read a single word by Mr Ossipoff saying
how he eliminates the physical dimensionality of the apparently not
existing data that he makes his rules use. Can't he repair all his
errors in an hour?.

Perhaps the pretence at there being a trace of voting theory or even
social decision theory, in this discussion could be dropped, and the
mailing list can embrace psychiatry and the psychology of lying to
mailing list audiences. It don't know if they are interested. We can
start it off by people browsing to my website and seeing if I can be
shown to have lied.


========================================================================

I just fix some typos. I want to point out to the mathematicians
subscribed just how intellectually low this list is.


At 10:19 00.09.12 +1200 Tuesday, Craig Carey wrote:
 >
 >
 >At 01:16 00.09.11 +0000 Monday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
 >
 >
 >>Markus wrote:
 >>
 >>>In the website http://home.pacbell.net/paielli/voting you introduce
 >>>7 criteria. 2 of the 7 criteria are violated by Condorcet methods.
 >>
 >>Yes, no method meets every criterion. Some of the best methods
 >>fail criteria met by others of the best methods.
 >
 >
 >When Markus says that 2 of the 7 criteria or Russ Paielli and Mike
 >Ossipoff, are met or not met, by the Condorcet method, he would be
 >admitting that the rules are understood by him. So I believe that
 >Mr Markus Schulze is true follower of Mike Ossipoff. That would fix
...
 >http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/stvrules/index.htm
 >
 >If a method and its users do not need to know of what voters "like",
then why
 >Why does a rule. Not all voters will inform of their likes. But the
 >rules of Mike Ossipoff and understood? by Markus Schulze, can need
 >more to detray their silence than they might otherwise want to do.
need voters to betray their silence more than they might otherwise...
...

 >Read those two sentences. Mike Ossipoff does not actually admit to
 >ever having applied his Paielli rules anywhere.

[My comment is feeble. I guess Mike has some faith in his "criteria".]

...
 >There is a possibility that the comment attributed to Markus Schulze
 >was fabricated or it was a blunder when written. Can Markus tell us.
                                                                   me?
...
To fix this next typo is why I write again. When I use the word false
I don't mean to suggest that. It may make defending against the
suggestion in the question, easier to refute.

 >I ask Markus SChulze: did you make a totally statement to Mike
                                             false statement to Mike
 >Ossipoff when you wrote[, ?]:
 >
 >     "2 of the 7 criteria are violated by Condorcet methods.
 >
...

 >To the extent possible Markus, please use familiar notation, i.e.
 >existential logic [...]
...

I retract this next in lines 2 to 5. It lacks a precision of ideas
allowing its meaning to be accessed. Civil servants are not fully free
to write what they feel while writing incomprehensibly when devising
decision procedures for millions. I would suggest that Mike Ossipoff and
and Russ Paielli also make their public ideas 'defined' if possible.

1>understood area. Markus seems to have a special ability of getting a
2>lengthy reply back from Mike, and it could be putting write at the top,
3>and [xxxxx] declaration of having understood something that can't be
4>understood. The topic is as remote as it could be from the creation of
5>new useful rules.
...

This could rapidly get the list's troubles resolved, just send us the
code and let us decide for ourselves with absolutely no explanations
or pointed comments from Mike or Russ, on what the definitions were.
When computer languages are designed, they get prototypes. Why not
Mike Ossipoff's rules?.

 >A question to Mike Ossipoff: have you done any computer simulations of
 >your rules?. If not, why not?. In your opinion which rule is nearest

Has Mr Ossipoff ever prototyped his rules. Like I once wrote in a
message to Mr David Catchpole, is the list a dumping ground of
garbage. Demorep identified that aspect of Mike's contributions and
got a pointed restrained hint from Mike?. I won't start a new thread,
but instead bring the message into this one.


...
 >It is plain that this list despises STV and all methods similar to
 >STV, one of which would be the ideal voting method. An ideal voting
 >method would would rather distant from Condorcet variants, I believe.
 >
This is an unusual list. No one agrees with others, but they unite
an abject incapacity to respond to new opposing ideas because they
typically can't see how other peoples' definitions threaten their own.
Rather than progress being made on that, the list was making progress
in agreeing that less clarity over definitions is more liked.

Does anybody know of a mathematics list that can discuss STV or
similar methods?. Mine is one, but if someone can get larger numbers
then let's shift there.

...
Whoops, it is better if I don't omit "not"s.

 >[...] I want to make sure that Rob Lanphier is not deprived of
 >the pleasure of not knowing about the handshakes "I read what

  the pleasure of knowing about the handshakes "I read what

 >you wrote and understood it...."


...
 >stuck outside of the barbed wire of a sprawling pesticide producer's
 >plant.

I guess the list could have a vote on the success of Mike Ossipoff's
new definitions, that are at Russ's website. Robla can edit the
Egroups webpage and archive. It allows voting. The Egroups site
really ought be updated anyway so that it links back to Rob's
homepage which has a few links and a statement of strict rules for
subscribers.



 >If Markus got [in], got friendly, and got out, we rely up him to keep us
 >informed.

I ask Mike Ossipoff: which nation of those you appeal to for improvements,
wanted to have badly worded rules?. Were they sincere in asking for
insincerely drafted and truly unlikable arbitrary definitions?.

 >>Markus wrote:
 >>>In the website http://home.pacbell.net/paielli/voting you introduce
 >>>7 criteria. 2 of the 7 criteria are violated by Condorcet methods.


(Also, Demorep, I am having trouble understand your comments about
"YES" and "NO" and so on.)




 >_________________________________________________________________________
 >Two winner elections?: We use Condorcet twice. Once to get the first
 >winner and once to get the second. Then we have two winners.

  Sometime we get 0 winners, then I stay in power. I never hear of
  complaints. I burn them.

  http://www.egroups.com/group/politicians-and-polytopes






More information about the Election-Methods mailing list