[EM] Replying to Richard Moore:

Fri May 25 05:36:46 PDT 2001

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 05/25/01
Greetings List,

Moore wrote:
<html><head></head><body>I Like IRVing wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:v01520d01630bd32b6191@%5B64.79.81.251%5D"><pre wrap="">
Under Approval, Bucklin, and Condorcet, voters of the largest<br>factions
should only make one choice.</pre>  </blockquote>

What does Don mean here?

Dear Moore,
     First let me request that you drop the html coding from your letters.

     Now, for your letter.  My meaning is quite clear, but I will expand.
     I mean, under Approval, Bucklin, and Condorcet, if a voter of one of
the two largest factions wishes to preserve his right to vote for his most
preferred candidate as his top choice, then the voter should only make one
choice.  Voters of the lowest factions should consider making more than one
choice.  Is that clearer?

Moore: I can think of three possible interpretations of<br>the word
"should" in this context:<br>   <br>

Don: You should not comment on your own interpretations of what you do not
understand.  It can leave you far out in left field talking to yourself, as
it has done in this letter of yours.  But, that would be normal for this EM
list, carry on.

Moore:  1. Don believes that voters should vote this way because it is to
their strategic <br> advantage to do so.

Don:  Bingo, you got that right.

Moore:  If so, he does not understand Approval voting strategy<br> well
enough to be qualified to comment on it.

Don:  On the contrary, I do understand Approval Voting, that's why I oppose
it.  Approval Voting is corruption served on a platter.

Moore:  In Approval, a voter should<br> include all the candidates who have
positive strategic value to that voter.<br>

Don:  No so, this would only be true for the voters of the smaller factions.

Moore:  That holds true whether or not your favorite is a front runner.<br>

Don:  You supporters of Approval Voting need all the voters to make the
mistake of obeying this misinformation in order for Approval to corrupt the
election.

Moore:  2. Don does know about Approval strategy and is simply being
disingenuous.<br>

Don:  I do know about Approval's clever and `ingenuous' strategy and I find
this strategy to be corrupt.  So, it could be said that I am disingenuous,
for I have rejected the `ingenuous' corruption of Approval Voting.

Moore:  3. Don is a would-be dictator who wants to tell voters how they
should vote:<br>

Don:  Again with the name calling on this list.  The word `should' is not a
dictator word.  The word `shall' is more of a dictator word.

Moore:  "You should do this because I say so".<br>   <br>

Don:  If you are quoting me, please show where I wrote that.  You `no can
do', because I did not write what you have in quotes.
      You're another person making false quotations on the EM list, you're
not being original.

Moore:  <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:v01520d01630bd32b6191@%5B64.79.81.251%5D"><pre wrap="">
Under Borda, voters of the largest factions would need to make
two<br>choices, if the Borda method is using the Borda Rule as
follows:<br><br>Borda Rule:  "Each voter ranks the candidates in order, and
each candidate<br>is awarded a number of votes (from that voter) equal to
the number of other<br>candidates ranked below him: the candidate receiving
the greatest total<br>number of votes wins the election."</pre>
    </blockquote>
Why vote for more than one in this case?  If you vote for one only, you
rank N-1<br> candidates below you and thus give the maximum number of
points (N-1) to<br> your favorite. If you vote for a second, you give your
second choice N-2 points.<br>

Don:  You misunderstand the Broda Rule.  If you rank four candidates, your
first choice receives three votes.  If you rank three candidates your first
choice receives two votes.  If you rank two candidates, your first choice
receives one vote.  You must rank at least two candidates in order for your
first choice to receive at least one vote.  I `suggest' that a voter should
rank two candidates, so that his most preferred candidate will receive one
vote, while no other candidate receives a vote from this voter.

Moore:  You should certainly do so if you get some strategic value in doing
so, but Don's<br> rule just doesn't capture Borda strategy either.<br>
    <br>
Richard<br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:v01520d01630bd32b6191@%5B64.79.81.251%5D"><pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
</body></html>

Don:  The Borda Rule is not Don's rule.  It was not written by me, it was
written by Borda himself.  Borda is the name of a person, it is not the
name of some defunct dot com company, although I do see the similarity.
     Don's voting suggestion does avoid the clever Borda strategy, as it is
intended to do.

D. Davison