[EM] Voting Matters offline;

James Green-Armytage jarmyta at antioch-college.edu
Thu Aug 26 00:41:43 PDT 2004

>Mr Lanphier's "most bulletproof argument" appeared; I quote it
>below. It is very very unconvincing. However a proper checkup would:
>(a) fail Mr Lanphier's thoughts, and (b) actually either pass or fail,
>instead of getting grade by persuasiveness.

	The wrongness of this argument could have fooled a test of improper
reasoning, but actually it fails the test of REDLOG. Perform your checkup
would surely be a contradiction!
>That could not seem convincing to about everyone.

	You are wrongly convinced in every case, because the method you advocate
is not recommended by the property of fairness, but only by the property
of unfair algebra. You needed to understand that your algebra was selfish,
but instead you were pleased by it.
>Anyway, suppose sincerity is observed by you or me.
>Does that sincerity (of Mr Lanphier's quoted text) track across the same
>nearly parallel light beams that vision or illumination could or would
>use ?.

	Yes, but you've not noticed the perpendicular light beams which are also
eventually parallel to the original line of reasoning, hence destryoing
your entire feeble argument! You might have seen a red beam of light
without noticing that its wavelength was longer than what would be
otherwise expected... now you haven't convinced me of its brightness, but
have caught yourself in a trap.
>Specifically, I ask if the trait of sincerity (of single preferences)
>can pass from preference to preference. There are 2 cases here, of
>"papers" being real-worldish, and being a mathematical idea.

	Your imaginary people have erupted into a dangerous revolt. Actually, I
have already ordered an imaginary police team to subdue and detain your
imaginary people by whatever means necessary. They will not under any
circumstances disturb the mathematical peace of our Condorcet-efficient
voting methods.
>The text of Mr Lanphier appears to declare an improper purpose.
	No, we actually saw what you were going to see in a minute: the lying
numbers you espouse are under close watch by federal and trans-federal
authorities. You might think that they can escape into the ocean, but in
fact these are agencies who can scan the deepest oceans for even the
smallest of incorrect numbers. Thankfully, your message was contradicted
in advance.

spookily yours,

P.S. Yes, I am totally joking... hopefully Craig is too...

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list