[EM] One Man One Vote in equation form; Power and rejecting Approval

Craig Carey research at ijs.co.nz
Thu Aug 1 15:17:21 PDT 2002


At 02\07\31 22:51 -0700 Wednesday, Richard Moore wrote:
 >Craig Carey wrote:
 > >> >From:· Richard Moore <rmoore4 at c...>
 > >> >Date:· Tue Jul 30, 2002· 2:20 pm
 > >> >Subject: ·Re: What are we all about?, etc.
 > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/9924
 >Craig needs another hint: Pairwise cycles are not "paradoxes"!

So what?: that word paradoxes is just a word. The actual regions where
there is no solution from the Condorcet method are well defined.

To suggest that Richard provides to me hints can be deferred until any
time that Richard can actually reply to what I write that is true.

I assume Richard Moore is going public with a belief that he does not
want to know. All those maths articles of the past make a strange
introduction to that. At a few times at this mailing list, Mr Moore
called for mobbed decision making. At worst a sensitivity to what the
members here wanted which does not seem to be principles notwithstanding
that a good method can be mathematically derived from principles.

Here there is a way to address cycles:

 >And here's one big hint, in case he's not catching on yet: There are
 >at least three ways to address these cycles -- (1) break the cycles,
 >as is done in the Condorcet family of methods; (2) ignore the cycles
 >and start eliminating candidates (and thereby ignoring much of the
 >information content of the election); (3) for each candidate, derive
 >some scalar value from the ballots, and compare the values.

Moore seems to not admit that pairwise comparing itself is rejected.

That is to protect the ideals of justice and fairness and the idea
that the method elects the required number of winners.

Moore can fix up graph theory problems in any way he feels like, or
do nothing (which appears to be the new idea that Mr Moore has
given to the readers.).
The single 'arrows' in Condorcet graph are certain to be regarded by
persons preferring monotonicity and truncation resistance, as
sometimes giving the wrong directions. The comparing of two
candidates gives the wrong results. Mr Moore was going to introduce
the mistake pehaps hoping it would be regarded as being a common
belief. Of course not: it gives the wrong results. The
Condorcetianists have algorithmic fixes and having the principles
be differential also resolves the problem of comparisons between
two candidates, giving the wrong answer in the circumstances.

These criticisms of Mr Moore are not at all small: errors should
not be made. Mr Moore has no reasoning for us to fault, and where
are the principles. The One Man One Vote I gave was almost an
axiom itself, but instead was a corollary on my P4 Equal Suffrage

If others want to follow Mr Moore then there bad defects will be
permitted in multiwinner elections. I have not got a first example
yet showing monotoncity to be insufficient. Maybe Richard Moore
can show us a numerical example, or maybe not if he does not run
a QE solver program. As far as I know, proceeding numerically is
too hard to understand and a solution is to use a symbolic
algebra QE program.

Read what Moore wrote and see if there is a proof in it for the
presumption that it is possible to correct the Condorcet method's
defect of finding the wrong number of winnners.

Moore does not have any principles (nothing?).

He dismissed "Equal Suffrage" and "One Man One Vote" with these words:

 >I won't address that section. It will take a lot of time and it is
 >plainly based on a wrong conception of "one person, one vote". It is
 >"simply rejected".

I derived the "One Man One Vote" formula from an "Equal Suffrage"
formula. Is Mr Richard Moore speaking for the mailing list members
when rejecting one of those equations. The easy mathematics was what
was shown.

Moore says he rejects what?.

I don't ask for Mr Moore's alternative formula since he was defended
persons that botched up their arguments and wrote about voters.
Mr Moore has been completely incomprehensible when defending
Alex Small over the whether or not the theorem of Mr Small existed.
No one here presumes that Mr Small will correct the definition,
and if Mike arrives to speak, then also it would not ever be used
too. Yet Mr Moore has said that it was good contribution or

Was that last message of Mr Moore a "spot my errors" messages. It
seemed a bit too vague to have been done for any such purpose.

Craig Carey


For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list