[EM] Re: Approval vs. CR (again)

wclark at xoom.org wclark at xoom.org
Thu Jan 29 19:08:01 PST 2004

Richard Moore wrote:

> Variations of CR have been discussed here in the past. Around three
> years ago Forest and I had an exchange

Thanks for the pointer; I'll do some digging in the archive to bring
myself up to speed.

> That example is in the same category as the "exception" I pointed out.

Indeed it was (though I think your explanation was much clearer than mine.)

> I haven't seen anyone claim A implies B,

Nor have I...

> The electionmethods.org quote about CR might have carelessly
> substituted B for A, but that's not the same as claiming A implies B.

I didn't have electionmethods.org in particular in mind, but the type of
careless substitution you mention is precisely what I was trying to draw
attention to in general.  I think that at least in some cases, it's not
accidental but actually indicates some measure of confusion on what these
statements really mean.

The point probably isn't that important, in light of the rest of the
issues that have been better addressed.

> It would be a straw man if it was intended to suggest that others were
> arguing from the first statement to the second, which I guessed to be
> the case based on your statement in that original post:
>  > Now, the point I would like to make clear is that A and B are not
>  > synonymous, nor does A logically imply B.

Probably it was misleading for me to use the term "logically."  What I
meant to get at was something like "analytic" -- that A doesn't imply B in
the sense that these statements imply each other[1]:

(C) John is an unmarried male.
(D) John is a bachelor.

Even though I doubted it was the case (because I misunderstood what
"strategic equivalence" entailed), I still meant to leave open the
possibility that A implied B by other means -- which may have included
some sort of detailed, logical argument -- but obviously I didn't make
that clear enough.

Anyway, like I said, this business with A and B doesn't really seem to be
an important point any longer.  So, unless you think there's some reason
to continue examining it (and I would suggest taking it to one-on-one
email if you do), I'm happy with where things stand.  :)

-Bill Clark

[1] Pace Quine.

Dennis Kucinich for President in 2004

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list