[EM] Guilty till proven innocent, seriously mis-applied

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

James--

There's another thing wrong with your "Guility till proven innocent", that I 
didn't mention before:

I'd said:

>If you were a gossip-columnist, and wv were a movie actor, what you're
>doing would be called "innuendo". (I've corrected the spelling of 
>"innuendo")
...
>If you have, or later have, an example in which wv gives a result more 
>undesirable than IRV can give, then post it. Until then, however, this is
>as if someone posted flyers all around your place of work, saying "Is James 
>really a _________?, even though we don't have proof yet?" [fill in
>whatever kind of especially despicable criminal you want to].
>

You replied:

	Good point. People should always be assumed to be innocent until proven
guilty. However, with voting methods, the opposite is true. They must be
assumed to be assumed to be worse than the status quo until it can be very
conclusively demonstrated that they are better.

I reply:

...except that you weren't comparing wv to the status quo, were you (unless 
you're advocating wv in Australia). You were comparing wv to IRV.

You continued:

r, they should be assumed
to have every conceivable problem until it can be conclusively
demonstrated that they don't have that problem. Why? Because the integrity
of the voting system is a very serious thing to risk.

I reply:

It's ridiculous to say that wv should be assumed to have every conceivable 
problem, for the purpose of comparing wv to IRV, but IRV shouldn't be 
assumed to have every conceivable problem.

The criteria failed by the better wv methods are failed by IRV too: 
Participation, Consistency, IIAC. and a few similar ones. I've told why I 
don't consider those criteria important, but they're irrelevant to the 
comparison of wv to IRV, since both methods fail them.

Yes, LNH. The special-purpose, method-dedicated  IRV-booster criterion. As I 
said, IRV protects your favorite from your lower choices by eliminating your 
favorite before it lets you help your lower choices. Kevin said that some 
methods other than IRV meet LNH, but, in IRV, LNH just amounts to "electoral 
euthanasia" for your favorite candidate.

It isn't clear what you point is. Maybe you mean to say that neither IRV nor 
wv nor Cardinal Pairwise should be proposed until we compare them by every 
conceivable problem, to find out which is better. We've already discussed 
comparison to the status-quo, but it was in connection with wv vs IRV that 
you posted the comments that I'm now replying to.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/