[EM] Re: James, your 6-candidate example

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

James--

I'd said:

>I don't know of any errors, except for one big one: I didn't say that no
>one could take victory from the CW and give it to A unless A has a sincere 
>plurality. I said that _the A voters_ can't take victory from from the CW 
>and give it to A unless A has a sincere Plurality.
>

You say:

	So, by "A voters", you meant voters who rank A in first place, rather
than voters who prefer A to the CW.

I reply:

Go figure :-) Where would I get a funny idea like that?: That "The A voters 
means the voters whose favorite is A, rather than the voters who prefer A to 
the CW. Perhaps you weren't aware that that is how that term has always been 
used here, and that your meaning is a new one.

You continue:

[...]

	However, I suggest that this restriction is not a very useful one. My
reasoning is as follows: If we are worried about a burying strategy
("offensive order reversal") in favor of candidate and A against the
sincere CW, the voters whom we should worry about are all of the voters
who prefer A to the CW. Whether A is their first choice or not is
irrelevant to whether the strategy is in their interest. Hence, A may not
be the plurality winner, but a successful burying strategy by those who
prefer A to the sincere CW is still possible, even in a 1-dimensional
example.

I reply:

Hello-o-o-o!  I'd just finished saying, in the message that you were 
replying to, that, if you want to call everone preferring C to D the C 
voters, and everyone preferring E to D the E voters, then, of those 3 sets 
of voters (The D voters, the new C voters, and the new E voters), the new C 
voters are a plurality.

Mike:
>One thing for sure is that the guarantee holds when there are 3
>candidates, and B, the CW, is between A & C, in the sense that I defined.
>That also means that it always holds when there are 3 candidates and 1 
>dimension.

You say:

	I think that you're correct here, given the restriction noted above.

I reply:

What restriction noted above? The restriction that the order-reversal is 
done by the A voters is part of the guarantee itself, so it's a bit 
redundant to say that the guarantee holds given that restriction.

You say:

...about my supposed repetitiveness.

I reply:

"Supposed"? You're in denial. Check your postings.

You continue:

	Anyway, for the record, I think that you're totally wrong when you assert
that my e-mails to you on the topic of voter strategy are nothing but
mindless repetition of points that you have long ago defeated.

I reply:

Fine, you of course can assert whatever you want to. But, whether or not I 
defeated the "points", I answered them, and, since you'd said what you'd 
wanted to say, and I'd said what I wanted to say about it, you've no need to 
keep on repeating it. Of course if you feel that something in my answer was 
incorrect, you should specifically refer to that and tell why you think it's 
wrong. But that wouldn't be repetition, it would be replying to something 
that I'd just said. That would be different from merely endlessly repeating 
the same answered statements, which is what you were doing.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/