Probabilities

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Steph--

You wrote:

I almost fully agree with you about what can happen.
I just really do not agree with those events probabilities...

I reply:

Wait a minute--how can you disagree with a probability? If you
mean that you don't agree with my statements about those probabilities,
then you're right: Of course you don't agree with my statements about
those probabilities, because I've made no statements about those
probabilities. You understandably don't agree with statements that
haven't been made.

You continued:

Polls for preferential ballots will rarely be reliable.

I reply:

Some polls will be more reliable than other. Ignore polls other than
by people whom you trust. But my claims about wv vs margins assume
that polls are always reliable?

You continued:

Voters do not vote in block.

I reply:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Did I say that they
vote in block? Often, however, there are more than 1 voter voting
the same pairwise preference.

You continued:

Violation of majority rule with margins or relative margins
is incredibly improbable.

I reply:

Ok, it's you who are making probability claims. Unsupported claims.
I've often posted plausible, ordinary examples in which margins
and relative margins violates majority rule. No, I didn't calculate
the probability, and you haven't suggested a way of estimating
it.

You continued:

IRV will rarely elect dangerous extreme candidates.

Just as I said above, about margins & relative margins, you're
making another unsupported claim. Very many ordinary, plausible, typical 
examples have been posted in which IRV violates majority rule
by electing an extreme candidate. But you say "dangerous" extreme
candidate. The dangerousness of extreme candidates isn't something
that you can make objectively verifiable claims about. But if you
want to make such a claim, you should try to justify it, as with all
the other unjustified claims in your postings.

You continued:

Preventing unsincere truncation should not be the main issue
of an electoral method.

I reply:

That's good, because I've never said that it should be or was the
main issue. As I keep repeating, SFC & GSFC make no mention of truncation. 
Truncation will be common in elections however, and
it will make a mess of those elections with margins and relative
margins.

You continued:

Optimizing the wish of the electorate should.

I reply:

Then let's not use voting systems that force voters to reverse
sincere preference and bury their favorite, as IRV, margins, and
relative margins do.

You continued:

Still, thanks a lot for all the time you give me.
And felicitations for your work on SFC.
It is harder to build than to destroy...

I reply:

Is it that you believe that you've destroyed SFC? :-)

Destroying or refuting things isn't as easy as you seem to think.
You've got to be a lot more careful with your meanings, careful that
you're saying things that are relevant to the claims that you're
making. You've got to justify your claims a lot better than you've
been doing.

Mike Ossipoff



_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

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