[EM] 2nd Matt reply--12/20/03

Diana Galletly dag1000 at eng.cam.ac.uk
Sun Dec 21 10:52:01 PST 2003

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Craig Carey wrote:

> It won't be OK in politics. But this is just list for untrue statements
> that have no place in the design of quality preferential voting methods
> (particularly when Diana speaks. As for myself, shall be withdrawing
> from this deep dark hole without much delay).

Er, show me where I have said something that is untrue?

It happens to be the case that if I post something that I later come
to realise is mistaken, I am *very* ready to apologise.

It may be that I have misinterpreted your messages, although since
your sentences often seem to be at best incomplete this might not
be surprising.

My understanding is that you are a supporter of STV (maybe even of IRV)?
Is this correct?

> The poor members here do not like algebra, so they aggregate and don't
> know what fairness is.

What proof have you that any of us dislike algebra?

> They maybe really are not so stupid that they can't create truly better
> method, but all are out for lunch if the topic of defining what better
> means shows up.

It seems to me that there are some people who want to a believe in a
one-size-fits-all system, for single winner elections, multi-winner
elections, referenda etc.

Personally, my interest is in referenda and, in particular, in determining
a system which doesn't cause widely varying results if just a few votes
change hands.

Calling me stupid will not get you far.  I am far from stupid, and
asserting that I am just because I happen to disagree with you, or
because you don't like the content of my messages, will not get me
to consider anything you have to say more carefully than I would were
you to be polite.

> How arbitrary: some privately belief on conduct with not even a single
> radiating Argon gas atom illuminating the statement with the right stuff:

This is an example of why I find your English hard to comprehend.  I
cannot even tell whether you are insulting or praising me -- I can read
it in both ways.  However, given your previous comment, I guess I should
take it as an insult.

> Rather than reject bits of Diana's advice, it might be fairer to find out
> more of her beliefs in the aim of estimating a date when Diana is likely
> to drop out or quit.

At the rate academic politics moves, some time in 2005 or 2006 I should
imagine.  I'm here for a reason, not for an argument.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list