[EM] aka [Junk Election Methods] 05/05/02 - Condorcet just does not make the cut:

[Richard Moore]

Donald Davison wrote:
> 05/05/02 - Condorcet just does not make the cut:
> 
> Alex, you wrote: "Seriously, do you disagree with the statement that IRV
> can elect a candidate who is also a Condorcet winner?  Do you disagree that
> the IRV winner is not guaranteed to be the Condorcet winner?"
> 
> Donald:  I tried to make the point that no method should be regarded as the
> standard for all the methods including itself, but you will not have that,
> will you?  It seems that you are insisting that one of the single-seat
> methods should be a standard for all, so be it.  If necessary, I can play
> that silly game.  Irving is more than qualified to be the standard of the
> single-seat election methods.
> 
> I will agree that Condorcet can elect a candidate who is also an `Irving
> Winner', but that the Condorcet winner is not guaranteed to be the `Irving
> Winner'.
> 
> That is one of the bad features of Condorcet, it does not always measure up
> to the `standard' of Irving.  Sorry, but Condorcet just does not make the
> cut.
>

Alex's statement was taken totally out of context by Donald (not an
infrequent tactic of those who rely exclusively on rhetoric rather than
logic to make their point). When Alex made that statement he was responding
directly to the following from Donald:

 >Alex: "IRV can elect a Condorcet candidate, it just doesn't guarantee the
 >election of a Condorcet candidate (if he exists)."
 >
 >Donald: More dishonesty, you call yourself a scientist and a
 >mathematician. What kind of junk mathematics are you using? What are you
 >smoking?

So I ask the same fair question Alex asked. What part of Alex's statement
in the above exchange was Donald disagreeing with when he said "More
dishonesty", and where is the "junk mathematics" in Alex's statement???

Honestly, I think it is quite fair for Alex to ask Donald to defend his
statements. But Donald's defense always appears to be to try to focus
the attention away from his errors. Misdirection is great for magicians
but it has no place on this list.

  -- Richard

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