[EM] Is no Clones rule but EMers that it was used?

Markus Schulze markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de
Mon Jan 20 01:47:42 PST 2003

> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:59:16 +1300
> From: Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz>
> Subject: Notes on total withholding over nonexistent withheld Schulze Clones test
> Communication from the owner of the 'Politicians And Polytopes'
> mailing list.
> I have 'banned' you from the Politicians and Polytopes mailing
> list. That means that outgoing e-mail to you will be blocked.
> If that is inconvenient then I suppose I might end the banning.
> You'd need to write to me (privately) to state that view.
> But incoming posted messages would then be moderated (not
> blocked since I could then miss out on interesting comments).
> With the Single Transferable Vote mailing list, it won't please
> me if you fail to absorb corrective statements that follow
> your comments. I won't take a chance and I will moderate you
> at the STV mailing list (i.e. your single address that is known
> to me). Other members don't want to write on polytopes and it
> is burdensome to their thinking while writing, to expect you
> to remain with the view of the document that they may
> reply to. I consider if progress could be slowed by such
> an action. I assume that knowledge of members might not be
> reduced. However if you are discouraged by my moderating then
> I could be wrong now. Apologies for that.
> I have not seen a defence of your Independence from Clones
> rule. Of course the method is trashy and hard to defend. I
> was wanting to get that corrected. A meta rule of never
> building up a good theory on a single totally false detail
> was getting implicitly disputed with, i.e. rejected.
> It certainly can be the case that rules could affect the
> lives of politicians. Presumably so long as they read my
> writings, they would reject the rules of everyone else
> including the precise rules of 100% of the EM List members.
> Obviously there is not much of importance in this message.
> You had some wording but it didn't have a perfectly present
> meaning.
> Despite this message I still hope for a really lucid
> statement on what happened to the mathematically usable
> definition of you published Independence from Clones rule.
> It can test methods and be of a reality that allows a
> single wrong point in the space of ballot paper ratios,
> to alter the win-lose state of the method (i.e. polytope(s))
> that are being tested.
> This is just an administrative message. A little wordy.
> I have an idea of a space lock and I am consigning you
> out to free empty space. SPACE - where there is nothing,
> but have no premises really stops the use of reasoning.
> Hiding it by summarizing occurs too late in time. You write
> in a historians style and presumably they are really alert
> to discrepancies in the timing of events.
> Craig Carey
> New Zealand

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