[EM] Replying to Richard Moore:

[Richard Moore]

I Like IRVing wrote:

> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 05/25/01
> Dear Moore,
>      First let me request that you drop the html coding from your letters.

Gladly. I'd been meaning to do this, and thought I had done
so but was mistaken. I just found where Netscape 6 has this 
option hidden. Surprise, it's not under "Preferences".

>      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?

The meaning is clear but not the logic. Suppose we have five
candidates, and my ratings for those candidates are
10, 9, 8, 0, and 0. Let's say the first and last candidates
are the front runners. I adjust for this fact and find that 
the strategic values for the candidates are 10, 5, 4, -9,
and -10. So you are saying because I support one of
the front runners, I should vote only for that candidate in
Approval. But why should I do this if I can nearly double
the value of my vote by voting for my three favorites?

> 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.

Um, giving my interpretations is certainly a legit form of
dialog. Your statement was wide open to interpretation. I
am simply giving a few possible explanations of it. You
have the right to challenge any or all of those 
interpretations if you want, but I think I was
well within bounds in giving them.

 
> 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.

Ah, so I was not "far out in left field talking to
[my]self." So why say so?

 
> 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.

There's a difference between understanding Approval Voting
(the method) and understanding Approval Voting strategy.

 
> 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.

Not so, see my example again. There are cases where it
is advantageous to bullet vote but that is not univerally
true. You are over-generalizing.

 
> 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.

Yes, if all the voters follow this misinformation you've
been spreading, it might indeed corrupt the results.

 
> 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.

So you admit to being disingenuous when stating that
front-runner supporters should bullet vote in Approval.
That contradicts your previous assertion that you
really believed your claim was true.

 
> 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.

It wasn't name-calling. Taken in context, this was the
third of three possible interpretations that I suggested.
I listed that option to cover all the possibilities I
could think of to explain your statement. To state that
it is one possible interpretation is not the same as
calling somebody a dictator. If I had said that it was
the only possible interpretation, then that would have
been different.

By the way, "Shall" is not inherently a dictator word.
If members of some organization vote democratically to
enact some rule, that rule very likely will take some
form such as "Members shall..." Is that dictatorship?
The dictatorship comes from the context, not the word
itself. And "should" could become a dictator word if
used in a dictatorial context.

> 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.

No, I wasn't quoting you. Did I say so? There were
some words between quotation marks, but there was no
attribution.

You're another person who doesn't realize that the
English language is full of overloaded symbols. One
of those symbols is the quotation mark. You need to
look at the context before you make such rash
judgements.

 

> 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.

Let's see if that's true. The rule, as stated, was
"...each candidate is awarded a number of votes (from
that voter) equal to the number of other candidates
ranked below him". I believe it is generally accepted
on this mailing list that if you do not provide a ranking
for a candidate, that candidate is ranked below all
the candidates for whom you do provide a ranking. If you
wish to use another definition of "ranked below" in your
statement of the Borda rule, please restate it to
include that definition.

But given the rule as stated, if you don't explicitly rank
three candidates, those three candidates are implicitly
ranked below all other candidates, and all other candidates
get a minimum of three points just for being ranked above
those three.

> 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.

Nobody is giving you credit for Borda's rule. Since
I was talking about strategy, not methods, it should
have been obvious that "Don's rule" refers to the
following: "Under Borda, voters of the largest factions
would need to make two choices..." But we wouldn't want
to set a precedent by taking my statement in context,
would we?

>      Don's voting suggestion does avoid the clever Borda strategy, as it is
> intended to do.
> 
> D. Davison

OK, if that's what you want to do, but not being clever
isn't likely to make very good strategy. Maybe all your
advice needs to come with a warning label, though.

Richard