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

rmoore4 at cox.net rmoore4 at cox.net
Tue Aug 6 09:19:20 PDT 2002

Craig prefers to ignore that P4 wasn't designed to represent "ballot power", which implies some kind of alignment with the ballot's intent, or "equal suffrage", but only substitutes a measure of the cardinality of approved candidates for these concepts. He also persists in stating, without giving a rationale, that pairwise results are information-free as regards selecting a "right winner" (so when IFPP eliminates one of three candidates, it picks the "right winner" from the remaining two -- how?). Craig continues to give evasive answers, and to create straw-man arguments by inferring things I neither wrote nor implied (as when he says I claimed that non-dictatorial methods implied some correlation to pairwise, when I never said more than that it would be harder to construct a method was both non-arbitrary and non-dictatorial if it had to produce a result that did not have any correlation to pairwise -- a fallacious syllogism on Craig's part -- to name just one instance).

I will not continue to argue point-by-point with Craig as it is getting very tiresome to do so, when anything I state is subsequently either misrepresented, or simply blasted as a "lie" without investigation. Most of my replies would then be taken up correcting Craig's misrepresentations, and no progress would be made as any new arguements would then
be subject to similar distortions. There is nothing "Socratic" about Craig's arguments. Socrates would never simply gainsay every argument made by his opponent, or claim that those arguments were wrong because they conflicted with his (Socrates') own views; instead he would work to expose inconsistencies within his opponent's views.

 -- Richard

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