[EM] 12/23/02 - Show Us The Ballots Mikeo!!
Narins, Josh
josh.narins at lehman.com
Mon Dec 23 10:47:58 PST 2002
Hey Donald, you wrote this...
--------------
Mikeo: "One advantage that Runoff has over IRV is that, with Runoff, at
least a CW can't lose if s/he comes in 1st or 2nd in the 1st balloting,
whereas in IRV a CW can lose even if s/he's the favorite of by far the most
people. The scenario in which that happens isn't at all implausible. It
requires only that candidates' favoriteness support taper gradually for
candidates farther away from that Plurality winner CW. Then, the
eliminations at the extremes, and the centerward transfers, will reach
candidates adjacent to that CW before they reach the CW, and the CW will
likely be eliminated.
IRV's poor social utility scores in simulations resulted from the
frequent elimination of median candidates, probably happening largely as
described above."
Donald: You should be ashamed of yourself. This is merely more of the same
gobbledegook that you have been handing out for the last five years. It is
clear you haven't learned much in five years. People are not going to think
you are super smart just because they don't understand what the hell it is
you are talking about.
--------------
Donald,
Aren't you the same savant who talks about 'garbage votes?'
I think I have fun and say "donald is garbage!"
It is fun!
It is like getting ice cream, and watching Donald's ice cream land
in his lap!
But no! Do not try it! It is _rude_ and people will say things.
But I don't care. I am carefree. I am sugarfree.
Too bad your ice cream is in your lap, Donald.
Hey, did you get my FREAKING gobbledygook? Do you understand? Is
your bullshit starting to occlude your vision? Is your smell-sensor (nose)
detecting any crap? I'd look in my seat, if I were you, Donald.
I may be no supra-genius (that would hardly be the point,
regardless) but you smell.
Donald is a smelly.
-Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: donald at mich.com [mailto:donald at mich.com]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 6:37 AM
To: [EM]
Subject: [EM] 12/23/02 - Show Us The Ballots Mikeo!!
12/23/02 - Comments on Mikeo's list of Best Methods:
Greetings list members,
Mikeo wrote:
From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF" <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Best Method In Use
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:15:45 +0000
I only know of 3 single-winner methods that are used in public political
elections, and all 3 are used in national elections:
1. Plurality (aka 1-vote Plurality or 1st Past The Post (FPTP) ). 2. Top-2
Runoff (aka Runoff) 3. IRVf (aka the Alternative Vote, Preferential Voting,
Majority Preferential Voting, Hare)
Donald here: Actually, there is a number four Mikeo, it's a variant of
Approval Voting, it's called `Plurality-at-Large for single-seat'
(Correction: Approval Voting is a variant of `Plurality-at-Large for
single-seat'). It is used to elect the president of a council in many
American cities, big and small. This variant of Approval Voting does not
elect the choice of the people, it elects the candidate with the most pity
votes.
Mikeo: "Of those, I claim that Runoff is the best."
Donald: Runoff is not the best, anyone who is not a fool should be able to
see that. Runoff requires a follow up election and it is only valid for
three candidates in the original election. The only thing that can be said
in its favor is that the voters know who the final two candidates are to be
in the follow up election, but that piece of information could be considered
as a possibility when ranking choices in an Irving election, without a
second trip to the polls. Besides, Irving is valid for more than three
candidates.
Mikeo: "One advantage that Runoff has over IRV is that, with Runoff, at
least a CW can't lose if s/he comes in 1st or 2nd in the 1st balloting,
whereas in IRV a CW can lose even if s/he's the favorite of by far the most
people. The scenario in which that happens isn't at all implausible. It
requires only that candidates' favoriteness support taper gradually for
candidates farther away from that Plurality winner CW. Then, the
eliminations at the extremes, and the centerward transfers, will reach
candidates adjacent to that CW before they reach the CW, and the CW will
likely be eliminated.
IRV's poor social utility scores in simulations resulted from the
frequent elimination of median candidates, probably happening largely as
described above."
Donald: You should be ashamed of yourself. This is merely more of the same
gobbledegook that you have been handing out for the last five years. It is
clear you haven't learned much in five years. People are not going to think
you are super smart just because they don't understand what the hell it is
you are talking about.
<snip> (useless text)
Mikeo: "The Secretary General of the U.N. is elected by Approval.
<snip> (more useless text)
Though your question was about official governance elections, let me just
add that Approval is also used by mathematical and engineering professional
societies with combined membership in excess of 600,000." Mike
Ossipoff
Donald: This is not the first time you have bragged about Approval Voting
being used in the UN and some societies. By now, I should think that you
would be able to show us some real ballot results from one of these
elections, which will tell us more about Approval Voting than all your
gobbledegook.
Approval Voting is just fine for any meaningless election, but as the
election becomes more political we will find more voters bullet voting and
therein lies the trump card that Irving holds over Approval Voting. While
there is no danger for the voter to make choices in an Irving election, but
if most of the voters do bullet vote, Irving can survive and still function
as Irving, but Approval cannot function as Approval when faced with bullet
voting by most of the public, it will turn into a variant of Irving (poetic
justice).
Mikeo, you are like a monk sitting on his fat ass in a dark room trying to
think how the universe works without observing the universe. You need to
observe real elections.
No good to just say you are sorry, you need to redeem yourself by getting
off your fat ass and getting some ballots from a real Approval Voting
election - Show Us The Ballots Mikeo!!
Regards,
Donald Davison, host of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald
Candidate Election Methods
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| Q U O T A T I O N |
| "Democracy is a beautiful thing, |
| except that part about letting just any old yokel vote." |
| - Age 10 - |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Please be advised that sending email to me allows me to
quote from it and/or forward the entire email to others.
----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice.
----
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