mathemaatics isn't aesthetic

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'd said:

>>By George, I do believe he's got it. Yes, those criteria relate
>>directly & obviously to the lesser-of-2-evils problem, the problem
>>that dominates the voting of millions of voters, making them afraid
>>to do other than vote a compromise over their favorite.

Anthony said:

Plenty of voters have had a chance to spell out what they
want, and they have overwhelmingly chosen IRV.

I reply:

I have no idea what you're talking about. In the U.S., the voters
haven't chosen IRV. In Australia they adopted IRV at a time when
Condorcet was computationally infeasible and Approval was unknown.
So what?

Anthony continues:

Therefore, by
your criterion, that is what matters

I reply:

What's my criterion? The standard of getting rid of the lesser-of-2-evils
problem because it's such a problem for so many voters?

Anthony continues:

, and if you really
believed your own criterion, you would support IRV.

I reply:

Twit Anthony is saying that if I don't want millions of voters
forced to dump their favorite because of the lesser-of-2-evils problem,
then I have to agree with the majority on everything. Anthony,
more than before, you're demonstrating yourself to be a complete
jackass.

If the people democratically chose a president whom I dislike, of
course their choice is the rightful president, no matter whether I
like him or not. Does that mean that I "support" him? No. I'd continue
to express my reasons why he isn't a good president. Maybe I'd even
talk of how the people made a mistake to elect him. But I'd never say
that their choice wasn't valid, if it was made democratically, with
complete information. I'd support the validity of their election result,
but I wouldn't support the notion that that person is a good president.

Anthony continues:

But you have gone off on a side issue.  What I was talking
about was this:

   >> Richard has written about how one thing he likes about
   >> margins is that it looks nice on a certain diagram.

It had nothing to do with what voters want, which is a
distraction.  It is simply incorrect.

I reply:

You just can't let go of Richard & his diagram, can you. Richard told
me that it had nothing to do with how the diagram looked, and so
I acknowledged that it was more about Margins resulting in a diagram
that Richard liked better. Richard said the diagram was just an
illusstration. What had he thought that I thought the diagram was?
Ok, the diagram was an illustration of something that Richard likes
about Margins. And, whatever it is, it surely is something very
meaningful & relevant to Richard. But I merely pointed out that
Richard's arguments and personal standards don't have any relation
to the concerns of voters or how a new voting system could best
get rid of the identified problems that our current voting system
is causing for the country.

Now Anthony says "It had nothing to do with what voters want."
Yes, Anthony, that was my point. You've gotten it right again. Very
good.

Mike Ossipoff


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com