[EM] 05/15/02 - Josh calls for more math:

[richard moore]

Donald wrote:
> The lower choices are garbage for the following reasons:
> 
>  * Most of the lower choices are not informed choices.
>  * Lower choices are used to harm earlier choices by helping some other
> candidate.
>  * The lower choices are not netural.  Most of them are for the lower
> candidates.
>  * Most choices are not made for the candidate, but instead the choices are
> made for the party of the candidate.  Change the candidate of the party to
> some unknown and the voter will vote for him anyway.
> 

It would be hard to assess the truth values of
the above without having rigorous definitions
of the following code words and phrases:

lower choices
informed choices
harm
earlier choices
helping
netural (sic -- could be "natural" or "neutral")
lower candidates
party of the candidate
candidate of the party

The last two in particular seem to relate to the
external political environment rather than the
election method itself, so it might not be wise to
make any generalizations with these.

Sloppy terminology could give rise to many
meaningless assertions. At least "Condorcet
winner" is unambiguous. Donald's message is
a good illustration of the need for mathematical
rigor in EM discussions.

 -- Richard

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