[EM] When is Mr Ossipoff's "favorite" not a winner?

[Craig Carey]

Mr Ossipoff was mentioning a "wv" method.

REQUEST 1 to Mr Ossipoff:
------------------------

Would Mr Ossipoff please e-mail into the Election Methods List, the
Boolean expression defining the 3 candidate "wv" method(s).

If Mr Ossipoff can't convert the method into a Boolean expression
then Mr Ossipoff probably had no idea on whether wv was bad or good.

Methods of Mr Markus Schulze and Mr Blake Cretney are also not
being checked. Those methods did not lie so much to the readers so
they might have a better method than wv, but it is unlikely they
would perform well under checking.

The sort of tests that I would want to use are:

   right number of winners
   truncation resistance
   one man one vote
   P2 linearity
   P1 or monotonicity
   if[?] multiwinner then equal suffrage

---

What is needed of Mr Mike Ossipoff, is to remove the "if" statements.
I remind the Election Methods List that Mike is exhibiting a personal
policy of affecting an appearance of never having read what I wrote
while at the same time posting up false/wrong/imprecise information.

Removing "if" statements is easily done:

    "if (xa < xb) & (xc < xb) then B wins = Z"

becomes:

    [(xa<xb).(xc<xb).Z] implies (B wins)

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

 >
 >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/9381
 >
 >From:  "MIKE OSSIPOFF" <nkklrp at h...>
 >Date:  Tue Apr 9, 2002  5:14 pm
 >Subject:  [EM] 2 understatements
 >
 >It's occurred to me that, in the example that I've used to show'
 >that Condorcet(margins) is doubly falsifying, not only does
 >that method only have equilibria with order-reversal, but it's also
 >true that all of its equilibria involve favorite-burial, the most
 >extreme and regrettable form of order-reversal.
 >
 >


If there is an affection from Mr Ossipoff towards wv, then it would
seem to be the case that logically Mike will believe that the
criticism of the Alternative Vote that was named "burying" is believed
to be a wrong criticism.

I guess we keep reading the EM list and watch Mike revert back to
the old position and then note that the EM members never commented on
it.



REQUEST:

I ask Mike Ossipoff to define these terms:

* "equilibria"
* "favorite-burial"

Mike won't reply. Yet the "favorite" term never stops appearing.
As far as I know, Mr Ossipoff has not ever given the term any meaning
at all, under the constraint that there are no attributes of any voters.

Possibly before the year is ended, this list may have received another
20 claims from Mr Ossipoff that a "favorite" exists.

The word "favorite" was being used in 2000. A person would have to be
a real idiot to have a term with absolutely no meaning in so very very
many statements, i.e. in the circumstance that there are no voters.

Mike never tells us how he knows who the "favorite" is.

This topic of "burying" is a bit different: the meaing of the term
"favorite" corresponds to this:
  "the candidate of the given preference which wins"  [8 words].

(And before that candidate is inserted another preference, the
candidate of which, lost both before and after).

Ossipoff wrote

 >that method only have equilibria with order-reversal, but it's also
 >true that all of its equilibria involve favorite-burial, the most

I gave to the word "favorite" the meaning, "winner", since the topic
was about "burying", i.e. "inserting a preference for a complete loser".

Overlooking the presence of the word Condorcet, we have a clear instance
of where Mike's use of the word "favorite" is means 'any of the winners'
including when there is more than one winner. The contrary is presumed
(usually without Mike actually saying it) in older statements posted
to the list.

All this argues that Mike is using the terms and words that give the
wrong meaning and though possibly Mike checks the meaning of what he
writes, usually not under the first of these 2 scenarios:
  1* a vote is a vote
  2* hundreds or millions of Ossipoff spirits are checking for "favorites".
   What does Mike believe there, e.g. in the scenario that there are 5 winners
   and each single voter casts 4 papers ?. Why is it that Mike has not
   defined the term "favorite"?.
  3* if Mike writes favorite then all those that attempt to repair the
   meaning will want always assume that when Mike uses the word "favorite"
   then that was not the intended meaning.

These wv expressions that Mike would be assembling and providing can be
posted to this EM list.

I have no idea on what the answer to the question of the subject field, is.
Maybe Mr Ossipoff will lucidly answer that.