[EM] More falsity: Concavity is what we want, better that than a triangle

[Craig Carey]

At 01.09.26 16:12 -0700 Wednesday, Forest Simmons wrote:
 >
 >
 >On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
 >
 >> D-- More strangeness about the basics of elections.
 >>
 >> An election for an office is for the term of the office.
 >>
 >> New election.  A change in ANY votes can produce different results.
 >>
 >> Is this so amazing ???
 >
 >You sound like an IRVie pooh poohing the non-monotonicty of IRV.
 >

I agree with Demorep in that. Note. this CC is a rule saying that this
is prohibited:

   Having candidate A win electorates 1,2,3 but lose when the 3 are merged,
   etc.

Forest Simmons is sort of arguing for the rights of electorates but not
for rights of voters.

Are we going to get an piece of legal oratory on why district zoned
regions have rights. They are not legal entities, Mr Simmons, so open
targets for any sort of thing the council wants to do.


My IFPP is far from complying with CC.


   IFPP Winner: B
                        B    3
                        C    4

   IFPP Winner: B       AB   3   : C is under the 10/3 '1/3 quota'
                        B    3
                        C    4

   IFPP Winner: A       AB   3   : B is above the 17/3 '1/3 quota'
                        B    6
                        C    8

'CC' just doesn't reject monotonicity by failing IFPP, is does one plain
thing: it prohibits concavity of regions, and thus only one good method
will pass its test: the First Past the Post method.

It is thus not a fixable rule.

It would be consistent with proportionality if

    AB  x      AB  48
    B   y      B   3
    C   x      C   49

    B wins   and  (b<a)(a<c)(c<a+b)


All those that advocated it can now write in and tell us what ought be
the quality standards of the list. When was the last time the list even
saw the polytope format equations defining Condorcet or a variant ?.
E.g. an analysis of it in the (A), (AB), (B), (C) tetrahedron or
something. How is that region filled in while keeping the method
monotonic and respecting the winner wherever it was found. It can't be
done, or can?. Fixed Condorcet methods may be nonmonotonic or totally
different from Condorcet?. They may fail to part of the same family of
methods. However people can't speak about monotonicity for some region,
and partitions of tetrahedrons seems to be far beyond this mailing list's
length of reach.

 From private communications I know that is a bit worse than this.
When the "C loses only when voted for" feature of IRV is spotted, it can
be quite sad. Maybe Mr Schulze could tell us if the Alternative Vote has
a problem with the B-C boundary being on the a=b line instead of the
2b=a+c line.

If (B) is altered to (BC) then advocacy of IRV is the expression or
concealment or whatever, or unreasonableness.

I ask all subscribers to be on the watchout for simple wrong ideas that
had not been subjected to the minutest amount of checking, e.g. if there
are over 30 communications lasting for weeks on the topic, with none
seeing anything about that triangle, at least in public.

That is the EM list's way towards truth. Rob Lanphier has made it very
explicit. Through interchange of ideas an through communication, truth
would come out.


 >>
 >> Are ALL of such voters disclosing how they have voted (or will vote in a
 >> future election) --- generally yet another election felony  (to avoid 1880's
...
 >
 >None would have to disclose whom they voted for, only that they voted
 >exactly as in the previous election.
...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


...
 >The Consistency Criterion we are talking about is much weaker, and is

That is false. A rule requiring that a method be First Past the Post
(or something worse) is extremely strong.

...
 >Here's a weaker version that might be called the Humble Consistency
 >Criterion, because it requires methods that don't satisfy the regular CC
 >to admit indecisiveness before they qualify for the HCC.
 >
 >Humble CC:
 >
 >If candidate A wins DECISIVELY in all the subsets in some partition of the
 >electorate (by restricting the election to the ballots from each of the
 >subsets of the partition in turn) then candidate A wins the entire
 >election.
 >
 >IRV fails even this humble version of the CC.

I do not see that that is defined. Why didn't you just reject the
consistency criteria idea instead of making another mistake in viewpoint ?.

Despite the failure of Mr Simmons whole edifice of views, I want to have
the word "DECISIVELY" defined, preferably using quantifier logic, given
all that has happened.

Maybe Mr Harper would provide the missing P function now that I am a
subscriber again. I do want to have the whole question answered: do poltyopes
have soft blurry fuzzy-set boundaries produced by introducing a small amount
of probability?.

Now that we have eliminated intelligence, and truth or knowledge as a purpose
of message posters, and also any political purpose involving the containment
of enemies (a test IRV fails) since P4 was not commented on, perhaps some
could tell why people actually want to ... [continued]

Some of the silent readers might be wondering if the posters had suspected
there was a possible link between the mathematics of logic and algebra, and
the (AB),(B),(C) triangle.



Craig Carey

Election Methods (theoretical):
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/politicians-and-polytopes