[EM] Mathematics

[Anthony Simmons]

>> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: mathemaatics isn't aesthetic

>> 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.

First off, let's look at the strange phenomenon of name
calling.  If the purpose is to reflect poorly on someone, who
does it reflect poorly on?  Now, on to something worthwhile
...

Perhaps to see the real purpose of Richard's use of a
diagram, all you need is a little more explanation of the
purpose of geometric diagrams.  People use the diagrams
primarily not because of the aesthetic consideration.  If you
remember high school algebra, then you recall that if you
have two equations represented by lines, their common
solution is the point where the lines cross.  That can also
be explained entirely in algebraic terms, but so much of
human intuition is visual that diagrams are often understood
more quickly and remembered longer.  That was the reason why
Richard's diagram was useful.

LIkewise, Richard's use of mathematics in general is hardly
unusual.  Nor does that mean his considerations are not
important to voters.  Richard was talking about accurately
measuring the will of the voters.  Contrary to certain
assertions, that is indeed of concern to voters.

Actually, I should point out that aesthetics and utility are
not entirely divorced.  One point of connection is based in
the fact that the people who are doing the math and using the
diagrams are human, and aesthetics does contribute to
understanding.  So even if someone makes an aesthetic
observation, it can't automatically be dismissed as
impractical.

Basically, that's my point.  I can understand that if you
want to disagree with me, you have to find something else to
disagree with, since I'm clearly right.  But if it's clearly
correct, why argue?

Now, on to less important things ...  When you objected to
Richard's use of the diagram, your objection had nothing to
do with voters.  It was just a mistaken belief on your part
that he was concerned about the aesthetics.  Richard's
argument was concerned with what the voters want; your
objection was not.  And I pointed that out.

But you have managed to quote me as saying that Richard was
not concerned with what voters want.  That was, of course,
incorrect, but it was very clever.  Of course, a trick, no
matter how clever, is still just a trick.  Still, it is more
impressive than calling people twits and jackasses.  But it
would have been more impressive if you'd simply recognized
that your objection to Richard's use of the diagram:

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

was mistaken and left it at that.

I notice you have also managed to put more words in my mouth:
"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."  This is not nearly as clever a trick as your
other one.  It's merely a simple misrepresentation, and I'm
sure everyone caught it immediately, so nothing more need be
said about that.

Then there is the business of your criterion of only
considering what voters want.  Now, you've said that I'm
wrong about the voters wanting IRV because it has never been
officially adopted.  On the other hand, you insist that they
do want to avoid the lesser-of-two-evils problem, so that is
relevant.  Need I point out that there is nothing official
about that either?  So, the one consideration is irrelevant
because it is not official, but the other unofficial
consideration is important.  Perhaps next time a brief
explanation of logic is in order.

Well, that about covers it.  I have tried not to get sucked
into semantic by-ways constructed for argumentative purposes
only, but have merely amplified on what I have actually said.

Hope that helps.

----------Original message----------
>> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: mathemaatics isn't aesthetic

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