[EM] Craig's posts
rmoore4 at home.com
Wed Sep 5 22:21:51 PDT 2001
Roy One wrote:
> I'm finding it a bit hard to get the gist of what points
> trying to make in his recent posts. Maybe it's because
they refer to
> private conversations that preceded them.
Or maybe it's because Craig is simply trolling this list.
That's right: He's been deliberately wasting our time. None
of his requests seem sincere. How else do you explain
the reference in one of his messages to "this list's typing
monkeys" (or "a community of monkeys in a zoo")? There are
lots of other cryptic ramblings such as "pairwise
comparing's ability to properly implement vote bartering and
perhaps bribing", or "Usage of it [FBC] could involve a
tariff before the far side of a better method could arrived
at." What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Craig states "Condorcet finds the wrong number of winners
sometimes". I'm not sure what the wrong number of winners
for a single winner method is. Something other than one?
Then in a later message he requests "Mr Ketchum: to state a
position you can post up the equations that define when this
Condorcet method you like, will find the wrong number of
winners." So Craig is asking Dave Ketchum to defend his
(Craig's) own statement!
Or how about when , in response to Dave Ketchum's "As to
hundreds of candidates - how can any voter be expected to
pick intelligently among such a crowd, regardless of method
of counting votes?", he writes: "Post up the equations and I
will have a look at them. Unless there is some problem with
that (nonexistence?)"? Does Craig think that the way to
understand human behavior is by means of equations? I
presume he is a big fan of Dr. Asimov's psychohistory
novels, but that math just doesn't exist.
More information about the Election-Methods