[EM] Another 20 years of the EM list

Craig Carey research at ijs.co.nz
Wed Sep 26 13:29:41 PDT 2001

Subject was: Re: [EM] CR style ballots for Ranked Preferences

At 01.09.26 11:06 -0700 Wednesday, Forest Simmons wrote:
 >On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Richard Moore wrote in part:
 >> .................. what is Approval but Condorcet forced into
 >> two levels?
 >Mike Ossipoff was the first to point out this useful fact to me.  That's
 >one of the things that got me to thinking about the possibility of methods
 >that would naturally connect Approval and Condorcet.  Martin Harper saw
 >the connection more clearly than I, so his was the honor of discovering
 >Universal Approval.

Please define "two levels". Since Mr Harper was previously at an utter loss
to find the facts behind a mistake he made over the meaning of the symbol
"P", that he was using, we might as well get the exacting details,

For a moment, I thought that Mr Ossipoff was being honoured.

I don't believe that the two of you are able to see much at all since both
do not post up algebra.

At 01.09.26 11:40 -0700 Wednesday, Forest Simmons wrote:
 >On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Blake Cretney wrote in part:
 >> ---
 >> Blake Cretney
 >Because of the probabilistic aspect, it would be useful to know, for
 >methods that fail the Consistency Criterion, which ones are more likely to
 >fail it, and the relative likelihoods.

What probabalistic aspect, Mr Forest Simmons ?. This is a mistake made
complete ignoramuses in the basics of preferential voting.

 >All else being equal, I would prefer a method that satisfies the CC.
 >Since most methods don't, the question I ask myself is what other property
 >or combination of properties would compensate for non-satisfaction of the

Does anybody know what the axioms that Forest Simmoms upholds, are?.

Probably not even Forest Simmons expect others to post up desirable axioms
only for the list to ignore it and failure to signal having even seen that.
Let Mr Simmons state his own axioms.

Can the 2nd highest assembly/court in United States be persuaded that CC
is needed using admissible arguments about legal entities ?.

With decent axioms it might be found that imposing CC forces the method to
be too similar to First Past the Post. I am not commenting on the problem
since I make the simple P4 rule almost the only principle in a new theory
of perfect methods suitable for all lives on all planets in all dimensions
and the Election Methods List of Rob Lanphier is back doing what it
usually does: thinking as thinking like this:

    "Did I leave a principle visible from the street?, what a grappling
    problem ... I will take it inside where it is private".

 >Different people will have different answers to (their version of) that

The Pygmies ploy: arguing a lost flock of villagers out of the church of
the new minister. "Certainly it is a different relgion but...". I will
retract that if it turns out that Forest had robust legal or geometric

At least there is no suggestion that others have better positions than
Forest's. What is the complete set of hard axioms/principles that Forest
would use to test/devise preferential voting methods?. None seen. Perhaps
Forest could "point out" the existential quantifier format rules that
he considers would be the only best axioms usable in defining a right
preferential voting theory. I was unsubscribed over some intervals.

 >Does Demorep's method forced into a (resolution five) grade style ballot
 >have enough advantages over Approval to compensate for the loss of CC

What an alarming comment showing a possible viewpoint error. CC is not a
desirable rule but the sentence of Forest Simmons contemplates having a
method of Demorep be tested by a not desirable rule.

The nature of the rule is wrong. Beyond that is an infinite arena of
errors for the list to concern itself with; errors in the nature of
getting the strength of the rule wrong. While my
polticians-and-polytopes mailing lists can complete considerations over
the strength in less than 5 messages or so, it hard to foresee that the
EM list will be onto the matter before 6 years are ought. It requires a
use of very simple mathematics. Either logic to derive a method, or use
of logic to compare two rules in the full absence of a preferential
voting method.

This list could be absolutely dead intellectually for another 50 years
or whatever it takes. It is American, so foreign subscribers would be
very carefully checking for any sort of indication of subscribers not
wanting to know about mathematics. If one browses through Germany there
is an open air of academic excellence throughout (maybe not at
Hannover and surrounding suburbs [speculation]).

Maybe Forest can nip ahead before the 6-20 years are up and tell us
about how to resolve the "paradox" of being unable to progress without
testing rules (not methods) against methods derived from rules?, without
actually using any mathematics at all. A problem is that the equations
are too complex to put onto paper. How that is able to be reconciled
satisfactorily with the collected desires of message posters to deny
the existence of existential logic over terms that are half-flats, is
moments away from being revealed as the days or decades pass. This is
not a list on mathematics.

Is it going to quit the topic of preferential voting altogether.

Does everyone full understand that all methods based on pairwise
comparing a offensive against vital rights in their handling of complex
coalitions?. Yet the list can't ever reject pairwise comparing and I
myself presume it is because subscribers are dishonest or stuffed with

Some questions would go unanswered.


A correction I note:

 >beyond deriving a 2 candidate method. One wonders if the list can even do
 >that. Even getting the 2 candidate problem solved using axioms is quite as

                                                                not quite as

 >simple as it might seem.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list