[EM] wikipedia.org's Dan Keshet, Alt Vote no-test checker and Massachusetts Green

Craig Carey research at ijs.co.nz
Sun Jul 13 01:34:02 PDT 2003

It seems to be wikipedia has a problem with Dan Keshet, or I alone have.

Nearly all the following is intending to be a criticism of Keshet.
Initially I could not imagine a commoner making mistakes as bad as
Blake Cretney had in his rule on monotonicity. That could be a mistake,
Keshet has been much too slow in providing to me reasoning.

This is from Mr Cretney's website:

| If an alternative X loses, and the ballots are changed only by placing X
| in lower positions, without changing the relative position of other
| candidates, then X must still lose. 

This is from the wikipedia.org website:
| If an alternative X loses, and the ballots are changed only by placing X
| in lower positions, without changing the relative position of other
| candidates, then X must still lose.


My article that Mr Keshet deleted on about 8 July 2003, is now archived here:


I am confident that it is not changed. I did fix a spelling error.
I simply named the CVD when the word IRV appeared.

All relevant records of Mr Keshet's stance and reasoning in the
matter of censoring my page out, that I know of, are there appears in
this e-mail message to Election Methods List.


I ask Blake Cretney to the mailing list all of the 11 proofs that those
11 methods were passed by monotonicity:

>Pass: Approval, Average Rating, Black, Borda, Bucklin, Kemeny-Young ,
>Median Rating, Minmax, Ranked Pairs, Schulze, Smith//Minmax,
>Sum of Defeats 

Since quite a lot of those methods are very unimportant, you could
proved you proved monotonicity of 2 or 3 for me.

I request the reasoning for the 10 statements that those methods are
passed. Approval is actually failed and I guess have conceded that
to the fullest possible extent and never got around to updating
your website. The wikipedia.org website got fixed somewhat over that.

Dan is making no true statement of his reasoning despite me having
repeatedly requested the reasoning using private e-mail. That positions
me to write this. I don't think that Dan really uses reasoning.

The chances of Keshet having had a proper purpose are something I have
no hope over. Anyway, with me alleging that he is incompetent and
them proving that and resolving every errors using zero reasoning,
total secrecy, and an intent to mislead locals, and etc., it is a
throwback to the days when Mike kept saying what he believed.

Dan Keshet said that I was not neutral about the CVD when I
actually was. He is an falsehood promoting IRV lobbyist and he
acted was to censor out the worst attack he of the Alternative Vote
that he might have seen for a while. He set an impossible to pass

Like would happen as IRV advocates advance in USA, the deterioration
in ICCPR 25(b) human rights is accompanied with a loss of FOI rights.
Probably even the CVD can't find out why there is such a failure to
name them as would be expected.

The CVD could be a lot less committed to idea of deceiving themselves
first and the public secondly with the same ideas, than is the case
with US Greens. So:
(a) the CVD could protect its brand-name (maybe there is no need for
   speed), and

I a stuck over this:
 * Dan is the censor of wikipedia.org so long as the topic is
   monotonicity and a few other variried topics you EMers may find out
   about later.
 * I can NOT get any page up into the wikipedia because Dan arbitrary
   says that it has to pass the test of his stupor-moronic mind
   being able grasp the entire meaning WITHOUT A TRACE OF EVIDENCE
   indicating that Dan Kwehset can move his eyes across the text.
   There is a deadlock over why Dan can't find the details of that
   must be there if Mr Keshet is not being very deliberately unfair.


RESHAPE the Alternative Vote (except when some approximate improvement
is being applied, e.g. deleting the 4th and subsequent preferences).

Dan's principles are decades away from being defined by Dan's own
thinking, so there is no approximate rule (e.g. sincerity or stability).

Dan has NO information on monotonicity at his website !!!!.

There is no more an argument against monotonocity than there would be
when unfair censoring is applied to an Election Methods List visitor.

I guess Rob L will want to ask this: what sort of deference is shown
to superiors up the chain?. A non-corrupt replacement wikipedia could
be run by you personally. I can't get a rule on corruption uploaded
since Keshet has the "I am stupid now and you must do a lot better at
explaining" test for me and maybe no one else at all. We can see
that there was absolutely no interest in the public since my page was
interesting, etc. Cretney's was very brief and it is similar to
Mr Keshet's website has nothing about monotonicity or my P1 axiom.

Thus he is 30 billion miles aways from some childish truths of voting.

Also his website indicates that he has considered that no man has a
right to a positive vote.

Also everyone at the EM List assumes that the earlier preferences are
more important, but now the anti-monotonicity propagandist is able to
censor all members of the EM List. Also he is very careful to present
his scheme of principles in a way that maybe could make the 4th
preference be more important than the 3rd, and the 3rd more important
than the 2nd, and th 2nd more important than the 1st.

Dan lacks a rule: he was botching his sincerity rule since talking 
about voters, so that won't fill in for the missing monotonicity.

One of the advantages of entangling opinions with the results of
investigations into the algebra of voting is that no one can beat me
in an argument. There are also losers. 


Mr Keshet is a Massachusetts Green and so I am going to assume that he
promotes IRV. I am sure he does but I could not find the webpage
saying he was an IRV lobbyist.

I only just returned but we share a common knowledge. Mike's definitions
were undefined, but the bulk of his statements that he used his
definitions were a lie. The facts don't allow Mike Ossipoff to be
the decision maker. That decision maker is Dan Keshet.

A definition that is presumably Mike's is here:

>With the relative order or rating of the other candidates unchanged,
>voting a candidate higher should never cause the candidate to lose, nor
>should voting a candidate lower ever cause the candidate to win.

Differences in wording are significant since Mike has not been known
to improve totally useless definitions but over 3 years I have seen
cosmetic changes in another rule of Mike.

Mike's definition is clearly worse than the one I write on. E.g.
1 rating?; 2 higher?; prefences can move in contrary directions,
Mike can do it right: convert his definition to a QE formula and do
so with a correct definition and see where they differ; or the
same with less generality.

Dan Keshet now states that a new version of his monotonicity rule is
passing the Approval method (see below in the 1st patch of quoted
text). I am sure that five days ago a different similar claim was there.
The statement said that monotonicity was passes.

So Keshet appears to be getting advice that is faulty.

I don't have to produce any speculation that Mr Cretney is the
original author.

Now Approval passes a modified monotonicity.the topic is how a large
number of checkboxes can not ever have a rank number that is not
1 or 2.

Someone has a definition of the rule that the Approval of Brams passes.

Dan Keshet seems to be well known at the wikipedia and so I'll regard him
as an FOI officer concerned only with the national or public interest.
That seems to lead to a problem: I can;t ger reasoning from Dan Keshet.
So I'd start to review the quality Dan's own website. Bits of that
review project are in this message. That keeps me from ever requesting
freer access to wikipedia reasoning.


This is the minor Dan Keshet website which seem to be flooded out with
shapeless ideas:


Here is the definition: X is that politiican and its name; X is misnamed
and alternative is able to have 2 meanings: it is both a person and
ball point marking (or the correspong mathematical scenario).


| Monotonicity criterion
| From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
| In voting systems, a voting system is monotonic if it satisfies the
| following condition:
| If an alternative X loses, and the ballots are changed only by placing X
| in lower positions, without changing the relative position of other
| candidates, then X must still lose.
| It is considered a good thing if a voting system is monotonic. If a
| voting system is not monotonic, it can encourage tactical voting, as
| there will be situations in which a voter will be encouraged to bury
| their favorite (i.e. rank their favorite option lower than their sincere
| preference).
| The Borda count are monotonic, while Coombs' method and Instant-runoff
| voting are not. Approval voting is monotonic, using a slightly different
| definition, because it is not a preferential system: you can never help a
| candidate by not voting for them.
| Some parts of this article are derived from text at
| http://condorcet.org/emr/criteria.shtml
At the bottom, press The Discuss Page if wanting to see, more


| http://wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk:Monotonicity_criterion
| Talk:Monotonicity criterion
| From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
| From the page:
| Some parts of this article are derived from text at
| http://condorcet.org/emr/criteria.shtml
| Some other pages have stated this, and said "used by permission". Can
| someone confirm that this use is by permission?
| I did not seek explicit permission (though I may get around to sending a
| thank-you email). The linked page, at the very bottom, gives more than
| enough permission to re-distribute under the GFDL. Indeed, the way that
| he phrased it there was no need to explicitly acknowledge his work, but I
| thought it would be good to do so, both to thank him, and because his
| site is a useful resource to link to. DanKeshet 21:23 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
| Thanks! That's good news. -- Anon.
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------
| I've reverted from a lot of edits by user:polytope. Polytope: you are
| wellcome to contribute to articles, but your material was really not
| appropriate, for at least the following reasons:
| 1) Wikipedia has a strict Neutral point of view policy which your
| discussion of the CVD definitely did not fit under. Please read that link
| for more information on how to construct NPOV pages.
| 2) It was very technical and frankly incomprehensible to me. You have to
| do a much better job of explaining your terms.
| DanKeshet

The version of the page that Dan Keshet saw is in the top table of the
irv-wrong-winners URL that is shown above. While it definitely does only
take a neutral view of the CVD, I might have edited the page and deleted
some unfavourable comment. I am 85% confident that the page was completely
neutral about the CVD at the time that I last edited it in 8? july.

I am confident that Dan lied when creating the neutrality argument that
led to the request that I read policy.

If Dan was not so intent on provide completely inadequate reasoning then
of course, the actual defence would be the text. Also he has to make
me aware of the problem rather than being too vagued to be believed, and
Dan trusts that I understand that when he states point 2, since saying
his personal unawareness is a model for others..

Incidentally point 2 is basically a lie because it encompassed a lot
of extremely easily understood text, eg. the numerical example of the
Alternative Voting which Dan claims to know about at his own website.

Note that Dan says that he has a problem with terms which are perhaps
single words, but he made a decision to not list them,

So far it looks all slight and that Dan could not conduct himself
correctly if he tried but a lot of guidance from me would surely
end any dispute. That is definitely not at all true since Dan has been
becoming less and inclined to present himself as a person who would
e-mail out to me true reasoning. 

The vagueness of point "2)" is hard to overlook. 

It seems that Greens have no problem removing rights of others,
but none can actually true reasoning of Greens. If they tried to
avoid shaping other people's emotions we might get the drop in
electability that we hope for since they aren't likely to immediately
patch in reasoning.

The Green could have been thinking of all of his meetings in
Massachusetts where they plan to never mention the name, CVD.

If Keshet was more truthful then he'd prefer the right name for
the Alternative Vote.

That idea of never naming the CVD should not drift across and sit
on and dismiss the idea of no academic references to the source of

Also those requests for reasoning would need to have the origin
of the information described.

Right now I request to Keshet if makes over to reading this, the
purpose of concealing the name of the person who put into the
wikipedia.org website, the definition of Mr Cretney/


Mr Lanphier said the wikpedia was getting better, here in 20 Feb 2003:


I have no idea how Mr Lanphier came to the conclusion that the wikipedia.org
website is improving. I can't get reasoning. As a remedy I intend to
review the website of the individual that has no reasoing -- it is a
website packed with very antisocial ideas, most of which are not
practical so not dangerous,


Item (2) of the quoted reasoning fragment is from Dan, who advises the

   "Mystic River Green-Rainbow Action" group, MRG

and you can see here, for Mr Keshet has the acronym "MRG" in the page:

>Voting Systems
>This page is being re-written to reflect the latest discussion that I had
>with the MRG voting sytems group. Expect changes.
>What makes a voting system good?
>See this page for a more in-depth discussion of criteria for evaluating
>voting systems. 
>Is it better to have a system that elects somebody who half the
>population likes feverishly and a third of the population dislikes
>feverishly, or one that elects a candidate one tenth of the population
>likes feverishly and everybody else is lukewarm toward? These are very
>real questions, and ones with subjective answers. I have selected the
>following criteria for evaluating the quality of an election system as a
>starting point: Proportional Representation, Descriptive Results, Limit
>Strategy, Comprehendability, and Feasibliity. Read the full page for a
>more in-depth discussion 
 here: http://www.channel1.com/users/dkesh/green/voting/criteria.html

It is largely all worthless material: if the statement is checking
methods and not perfectly exact then it is not there.

Look at what Keshet wrote: first he starts with the perfect untruth
(in general) that a candidate should win if that candidate gets
50% of the votes, or some other particular non-zero quantity of the
vote. The word first use of the word "better" can be described with a
formula. Then his articles goes a bit of a way to trampling on
mathematics by say he has got to be subjective, or was hoping to

>Analyzing Voting Systems
>See this page for a more in-depth discussion of how to analyze voting
>systems http://www.channel1.com/users/dkesh/green/voting/analyzing.html
>Each voting system has it's own logic and it's own strategy. It is very

That is not the fact at all, instead they have the same papers.

The actual differences between the method is overlooked since if there
is a problem there of any, the method is failed. E.g. 2ppm in error
if there are minus 1 wasted-ballot ballot papers.

The well known CVD (i.e. Richie) is probably never going to produce a
lucid statement saying that wasted ballots should not ever intensify
other ballots. I.e. if a Green is at the 31% level and then spoiled
ballot papers are added, then they become a winner.

I wonder if Mr Blake Cretney has got a rule to stop that. I guess
the principle needed is P2 (imposing a type of linearity) and as far
as I know, no one else accepts that.

Lobbyists don't actually use rules.

>important that when we analyze a voting system, we cast ourselves out of
>the strategies we are used to from the systems we have used in the past,
>and into the strategy the voter and candidate will feel as they use each
>new system. In order to do that, there are some concepts we must think
>about and some principles we must assume.

I am sure I can spot the topic there: the Green is trying to imagine
what other people are going to be thinking. His main aim is to get
a good enough idea on the divide between ignorance and knowledge,

At the junction there are a lot of receptive minds that would flip
over the edge.

There are five "we"s which is inappropriate for an Internet audience,
but that dogma to Greens might not run well since it can constrain
the freedom to manipulate the beliefs of others. I suppose that
leaves the arbitrary style of appearing to be a leader of a group
audience, but believing it is only a webpage.

One more point: the word feel near to strategy indicates that voters
OR their candidate are not using simulations which could be easy to do.

The consideration is that of manipulating the behaviour of the
common man using dogma as a guide. He calls it "principles" and
despite the clipping, it won't maths axioms. 

All that knowledge of Greens on what the others want ("feel"),
really should be kept undisclosed. I have not spotted a US
covertly-CVD-bashing IRV propagandist's exhortations before.

Another thing is this: Keshet's dispute with me marks him out as
a person ready to keep clinging to the ultra-dim view that preference
number 4, ie. ranking 4, is lower than number 3, i.e. the 3rd.

The CVD believed the following but I never ever saw them say that
they only accept carefully botched definitions of monotonicity.

At the irv-wrong-winners.htm page I have the facts allowing the
Alternative Vote's failure of monotonicity, to leave 37.5% of 285
million Americans, with votes that are negated and very close to
being ignored.

Mr Keshet describes the importance of understanding the minds of
many (thousands of people). But he implied he did not understand
all of my extremely brief English definition of monotonicity.

: If candidate X loses, and the ballots are changed only by shifting
: preferences for X further away from the 1st (includes: dropping off the
: end of the paper), and without changing the relative position of all
: other preferences, then candidate X must still lose. The weight of papers
: does not change when shifting of X preferences occurs; but an exception
: is for shifting a preference naming X out of an "(X)" paper that names
: only candidate X. In that case the weight can reduce (and more votes can
: be removed than the "(X)" paper started with). The definition copes with
: papers with negative weights (counts).

The need is that the rule not be total bullshit but the wikipedia.org place
has missed out on that.

Mike retired from researching (researching into his own mistakes).


Dan Keshet has is keeping Mike anonymous. Presumably Dan Keshet is
the important conduit of dud definitions.

The same Dan says that X is a candidate and then he (adn not Mike)
says that X is moved down a paper. Keshet purges definitions that
do not say that candidates move down ballot papers. Georgian
peanut butter candidates spread over. 


Here ins an inconsistency (again indicating Dan is covering up
abuse of power)
  Dan Keshet said to me when I arrived with new information that
  wikipedia or something would like to see a mathematician. I never
  question the reasoning for that. It is looking awfully fake and
  superfluous now. Dan can write at least 2 lines but can't read
  that many if it is his own monotonocity definition.
  Mathematicians get welcomed by Keshet prior to him purging them.
  Not a comment anywhere in that page indicating the Keshet is
  a competent in getting pro-Green propaganda running better.

  I say that Keshet could have edited up the principle of
  monotonicity and inserted it into the previous page.

None of my definitions ought be replaced with Mr Cretneys.


Dan Keshet has a bit to say about the importance of sincere votes as


>When we say sincere preferences, we are referring to what the voters
>actually desire, as opposed to the preferences they record on the ballot.

That perfectly mismatches with the use of the "X" of the wikipedia
monotonicity definition: it had a preference be a candidate rather
than a voter. In fact all three are different and voters are not
taken account of if a method's polytope is being checked.

Regarding sincerity: the best thing to do (at least in a 1 winner
election) is to do is to not define a rule for it. We don't do what
Dan is starting to argue there, and create a fake rule based on
irrelevant information that doubtless is never ever used when testing
a method. Monotonicity is sufficient to stop transfers to a 3rd
or 4th party, though someone could change an axiom.

That reminds me: a first aim is to jot down the full set of axioms
on an A4 sheet of paper. That is remarkably easy if the outlines of
them are there. I am not finishing that argument.

>In most voting systems, there is a discrepancy between what voters want
>and what they end up marking on the ballot. 

Dan is not saying there too that the first axioms are
(A) never checking for incompleteness or total unusableness
(B) covering up problems where Dan's IRV is rejected.

Here is new idea: "stability": Dan says...

>Stability is the idea that voting systems should not have
> massive changes in representation due to small changes in
> voting patterns. 

There is no numerical example on the page making it convincing. Nor
will there be I guess, since the bias does permit a truthful and
fair view, i.e. on that rejects IRV, say.

The best example easily has a maximally unfair cascade of votes from below
and then cascade is upset at the bottom.

I.e. the example Dan Keshet would want if proving his thesis that
"instability" of Green beliefs is a killer of votes for Greens.

What method fails that test more than the Alternative Vote ?.
He should add the constraint that the change is a wrong change.

IRV shows up its awful worst just as readily when the insist that
the change not only be big but non-monotonic too.

But at this moment Dan Keshet is the owner of a botched monotonicity
definition and probably sensing a dispute with the creator of 3 candidate
IFPP (Improved First Past the Post)

Suppose there was this election:

  49 other candidates and papers. 1 winner. Later all but 2 cands. are removed
  49.99 (A) votes
  50.01 (B) votes.

It seems that a massive change in representation will actually occur.

Hence Dan Keshet is competent with only 1 candidate methods since he
said that the massive change in the 2 candidate election should not
occurs but plainly they should.


Dan also wrote this:

>When we say sincere preferences, we are referring to what the voters
>actually desire, as opposed to the preferences they record on the ballot.


In the zero winner election, a person vote persons they wish to lose.
There are 2 types of ballot paper.
Dan didn't convert sincerity into a principle but tried to say that it
was important.

Suppose 100% of all voters did not want A to win yet voted for that
candidate. There is a plain problem: to compare their intent with the
papers presumably make all be insincere, yet to consider all the
stresses and the absence of any movement leads to something neutral
to be said of each voter. That would be classed under sincerity.

There are two ways of defining sincerity: the voters are judged by
papers or by the winners.

The correct view is going to be to consider the winners: the papers
have their weights be perturbed (changed by a small amount)

Keshet got that wrong or else is doing something like devising a test
to test the sincerity of immigrants that arrive in Massachusetts by
plan or boat or in any other way. Greens could be scandalized if it
was the 2nd.

It is possible a get significant distance out to the idea that the
Green parties are full of people who can't make it to the 1 candidate
class of theoreticians. 

Through extreme care in the design of the (wikipedia) algorithm of
selecting personnel, it is possible to get a person who is the
best for the position.


Here is the Green party website URL:   http://www.green-rainbow.org/


| Some parts of this article are derived from text at
| http://condorcet.org/emr/criteria.shtml
| Some other pages have stated this, and said "used by permission". Can
| someone confirm that this use is by permission?
| I did not seek explicit permission (though I may get around to sending a
| thank-you email). The linked page, at the very bottom, gives more than
| enough permission to re-distribute under the GFDL. Indeed, the way that
| he phrased it there was no need to explicitly acknowledge his work, but I
| thought it would be good to do so, both to thank him, and because his
| site is a useful resource to link to. DanKeshet 21:23 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
| Thanks! That's good news. -- Anon.

Please consider assuming that Dan Keshet is both the supplier and
the approver.
It remains just as worthless to a historian of mathematics.

Anonymity confuses identities of 2 people, as well as hiding those
identities. That means that Dan Keshet is not satisfying me when
presenting unnecesasry concerns and fully omitting the reasoning there.

Mr Cretney has the mystery of a large number of missing proofs.

It reminds of the Ossipoff school- no proof and there never could
be any.

((The word "he" ("the way he phrased it") might be Mr Cretney.))

Mr Keshet[[?]] patched up the error after I e-mailed Mr Cretney last week
for wikipedia,org had an untrue claim that monotonocity passed
Approval (unless inability to test is a pass).

To Mr Cretney: ddn't forget to remove the fallacy about Approval
being passed by monotonicity from your own website. It is near
middle of the page full of missing proofs.

Presumably anonymity is to protect the supplier against the reality
of having been found to have disclosed falsehoods.

The interests of the public is unquestionably pro-truth and
pro-disclosure, when the topic is hypergeometry and the selection
of persons standing for office complaining and no private lives.

Botching the definition of monotonicity is definitely pro-IRV and
so is anonymity.

Still no data on whether the EM List was behind that.


New standards have appeared at the wikipedia that are impossible for
me to pass. This is the reality.

Now I can't get articles of unimprovable lucidity on maths and that are
absolutely exciting (e.g. 37.5% of Americans have their rights trashed)
the standard appears to be that Dan Keshet now will ALSO censor
mathematicians that write in a way he can't understand. That seems
easy to do when 1 candidate methods are the limit the competence of
Mr Keshet.

Is there anything that could be done to educate Mr Keshet: after all
he would censoring the entire EM List if censoring me.

A lot of problems are possible once absolutely meritless ideas at the
Keshet personal website atre transferred into the wikipedia.org site.

Obviously such absolutely worthless that the brick-work of a new
age lacking a CVD, would have to be rejected by Dan for being too
unmathematical to be reasonable. However Dan is refusing to e-mail
to me the reasoning that list the ulterior motives that were present
when preferring the definition of Blake Cretney.


A slim avenue for Keshet to make a defence is this: my page had to be
censored since "technical".

| 2) It was very technical and frankly incomprehensible to me. You have to
| do a much better job of explaining your terms.

Dan Keshet has to actually to actually provide to me the true and
detailed reasoning.

I don't seem to have an upper limit on how long I need to wait.

The article that Dan Keshet was writing on, is online here:


Just what is the purpose for the IRV promoting lobbyist (so says the
personal website) holding up the candle of the unknown GFDL acronym to
truth itself (or at least it might have been if a better definition
had of been copied).

I could start up a page on the P1 rule at the wikipedia.org website.

I don't know what it would take to persuade Blake Cretney that a
function returning a Boolean is not a criterion. A "criterion" for
what ?, i.e. what reasoning is it prefixed to. A single word is
supposed to be running the type of coverup that Green wikipedia staff
themselves do. The fact is that the word is thrown away and the
size (e.g. a length) of the perfect failure is measured.

It is Blake Cretney who is the IRV advocate since creatin the
definition that far too badly worded (not designed) to test and fail
IRV. Keshet is somewhat competent at wording so would prefer far
worse definition of * Blake Cretney *.

Additionally Mr Cretney failed IRV instead of finding the worst
failure (37.4% of USA is deprived of a right to vote or whatever).

He rejected tests returning Real values: they can find the worst.
That can be time consuming.

I am troubled with reply at all to my reasoning the real reasoning
he used (if different) and the weights and lies as a basis for telling
me about wikipedia.org policy. Mr Cretney is the cheif IRV promoter
at the moment and not able to most of my e-mail though I can reply
to all of his.

This is all around: Mr Cretney calls a criterion, a thing that I
would describe this way: it is a Boolean-valued "rule" that is bolted
on to the front of forgiving hyper-secret result mangler of a
unjustified design. So some of the fails are turned into passes. It

It is guaranteed by the word "criterion".

Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz>    Auckland, New Zealand
Freedom of Information in America: http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/foi-l.html
The Ontario Ombudsman's 1996 Fairness Checklist:

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list