[EM] James, 4/22/'05, 0220 GMT

[Paul Kislanko]

Mike, if you don't have anything new to say, please stop repeating yourself.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> ] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:20 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] James, 4/22/'05, 0220 GMT
> 
> James--
> 
> You said:
> 
> There are plenty of valid reasons to repeat a statement on EM 
> more than
> once...
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Yes, that would be different.
> 
> But, without those special reasons, repetition of already-answered 
> statements wasn't serving a purpose. If you felt that my answer was 
> incorrect, or needed criticism, then you should have 
> addressed that answer, 
> rather than merely repeating the statements.
> 
> You continued:
> 
> to
> communicate them to someone who doesn't seem to be aware of them or
> understand them yet
> 
> I replyP
> 
> But what about to someone who has already agreed to them 
> several times?
> 
> You continued:
> 
> , to rephrase or modify them as a response to an
> argument, to rephrase them in an attempt to clarify, etc.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> But you weren't really rephrasing them.
> 
> But you're right, that I should just not even comment on 
> things that have 
> already been answered, and should only reply to new statements, or to 
> comments that speak to things that I've said.
> 
> You continued:
> 
> For
> example, in my last strategy message to you, I replied 
> directly to your
> argument that the burying strategy is not a "new problem" in
> Condorcet-efficient because it only causes the same 
> "undesirable results"
> that exist in non-Condorcet-efficient methods without the use 
> of strategy.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> But I'd said that you can define "new problem" how you want 
> to, and that for 
> that reason I'd rather avoid that term. So I only wanted to 
> talk of certain 
> undesirable results that are the same whether caused by 
> "burying" or by IRV 
> on its own.
> 
> You continue:
> 
> It is a multi-part counterargument that focuses on differing kinds of
> undesirable results
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Yes, and there's an answer to that. I wasn't going to start 
> it now, but let 
> me just say that you can't elect a Condorcet loser unless you 
> fail to elect 
> a CW, and you can't violate preference Pareto unless you 
> violate majority 
> wishes. Your worse results tend to be things that can only 
> happen when my 
> undesirable results happen.
> 
> Your goals are just a lot more modest than mine. Where I want 
> to elect the 
> CW, you want to elect anyone but the Condorcet loser. Where I 
> want to avoid 
> violation of majority wishes, you will settle for only not 
> violating Pareto. 
> There's nothing wrong with being willing to settle for less. 
> You probably 
> voted for Kerry, didn't you.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan 
> from McAfeeR 
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>