[EM] Re: Comments on Approval posting

[Russ Paielli]

Here we go again, folks.

Let me preface this post by first apologizing to all who are annoyed by 
this public fracas with Mike. Let me point out, however, that it was 
Mike, not I, who introduced every off-topic subject to this forum. And 
it was Mike, not I, who initiated the insults and the patronizing tone. 
I am merely responding to Mike's dirty tricks, and since Mike prefers to 
fight dirty, I will simply give him a dose of his own medicine. I can 
only hope he will learn a lesson, but based on past experience I 
certainly don't expect that.

As I wrote earlier, and as he has since corroborated, Mike is absolutely 
convinced that the 9/11 attacks were organized and planned by the Bush 
administration. He believes that the WTC had explosives installed that 
were wired to detonate on cue to collapse the buildings. He believes 
that a U.S. missile hit the Pentagon and the airplane that supposedly 
hit it somehow disappeared without a trace. Mike is also absolutely 
convinced that the Republicans stole the 2004 election by means of 
rigged paperless voting machines -- even though the Democrats themselves 
have not made that claim.

I spent a lot of time trying to talk sense to Mike, but he is apparently 
beyond reach. I must say, however, that my dialogue with him was an 
educational experience. Here is an ostensibly intelligent American 
living in the U.S.A who believes absurd tales that are popular among the 
Middle-Eastern viewers of Al-Jazeera. They have an excuse, but I don't 
know what Mike's is.

My experience with Mike tells me something very important about the 
opposition to the war in Iraq. If Mike is typical of the folks who 
oppose the war, then Bush is on solid ground. Well, Mike is certainly 
not typical, but he does perhaps epitomize the irrational opposition to 
the war. Note that I did *not* say that *all* opposition to the war is 
irrational. I can respect the view that the war is not worth the cost in 
lives and dollars. What I have *no* respect for is the view that we are 
in Iraq for purely "imperialistic" reasons and that we are terrorizing 
the Iraqi people.

That's what Mike thinks, of course. Mike also believes, by the way, that 
the U.S. is fundamentally no better than the Soviet Union, and not much 
better Nazi Germany. Well, excuse me, but I am as disgusted by that view 
as most of you are by neo-Naziism. On the other hand, I am encouraged by 
the fact that it is believed by a lunatic who believes the other looney 
ideas that Mike believes. Mike could be a poster child for the 
Republicans in 2008.

Another point about Iraq ties in with the topic of this forum. As you 
all know, they are scheduled to have to have an election in a few days. 
Like the recent election in Afghanistan, this will be a historic event. 
I wonder how Mike will explain this away in his sick mind. Will he claim 
that the elections were illegitimate or rigged? The world is waiting to 
see what the sage of voting systems will say about the election in Iraq. 
Tell us, sage, are elections preferable to dictatorship? Will the Iraqis 
be better off electing their own leaders, or are they too dumb for that 
and better off under the thumb of a tyrant? Please bestow you wisdom on 
us, Mike.

Well, I honestly don't know if democracy will work in Iraq, but I 
suspect that the Iraqis will be smart enough not to squander the golden 
opportunity handed to them courtesy of the U.S. -- the U.S. military in 
particular. What I *do* know, however, is that democracy could not 
possibly work *anywhere* if the electorate were even half as wacked out 
as Mike. You're a fruitcake, Mike.

OK, that was fun. Now let me try a few replies below.

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> 
> I was in a hurry yesterday, and so it wasn't possible to answer all of 
> Russ's questions.
> 
> I'd said:
> 
>>
>>>  The party that is always CW or at the voter-median would keep 
>>> winning at MW equilibrium. Just that one party.
>>>
>>> But it's true that Approval would fairly deal with any number of 
>>> parties. But it wouldn't include them all in a winning equilibrium, 
>>> nor should it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Russ replied:
>>
>> If only one party is popular, then obviously that party will dominate.
>> That is true for practically *any* democratic system.
> 
> 
> But I didn't say that if a party is the only popular party it will keep 
> on winning at MW equilibrium in Approval. I said that if a party is 
> always at the voter median it will keep winning at MW equiilbrium. That

I did not say that you said *anything*, Mike. You just *assumed* that I 
had *implied* it. You are free to correct what you think I am implying, 
but you are not free to attribute your extrapolations of my statements 
to me.

> isn't the same thing. Though you don't tell us what you mean by  
> "popular", the fact that you say that the only popular party dominates 

Get a dictionary, Mike. I realize you're poor, but they're not very 
expensive.

> in practically any democratic system shows that "the only popular party" 
> doesn't mean "party at the voter median". If you understsood that, you 

If *I* understood that? Show me where I said that the two are the same? 
You pulled it out of your rear end, Mike.

> wouldn't have thought that your statement about the only popular party 
> had any bearing on my statement about the voter median party. But it 
> would be giving you too much benefit of the doubt to assume that you 
> know what you mean by "the only popular party".

I have a dictionary, Mike, but I didn't even need it for this case. 
Nevertheless, I looked it up for you. The relevant definition here is

popular: commonly like or approved

Now, if only one party is "commonly like or approved," Mike, what do you 
suppose will happen in an Approval election? Think hard, Mike, but try 
not to blow a fuse.

> That sloppiness is typical of you, Russ. You come along, repeating the 
> Approval comments made by people who have just been introduced to it, 
> announcing that you'vd discovered that Approval requires strategy 
> decisions that are often based on uncertainty :-) , and actually 
> believing that you're telling us something that hasn't occurred to any 
> of us. And you talk about delusions of grandeur.Of course newcomers are 

Mike, you still haven't given the slightest indication that you have a 
clue what I was trying to say about Approval strategy.

> welcome, but you come putting on airs, with the arrogance that typically 
> goes with complete ignorance, expounding on a whole list of things that 
> you obviously have no understanding of, acting out a delusion of 
> grandeur that you're informing us of something and meaningfully 
> participating in the list.
> 
> If you have questions, and had asked them less pretentiously and more 
> politely, we all would have been glad to help you. But it's become 
> evident that it would be better if you get your elementary education 
> somewhere else.

OK, Mike, here's my question. Do you have a clue what I tried to say in 
my post about the potential *practical* problems of Approval strategy 
under certain conditions? I don't think you do.

> 
>>
>> I reply:
>>
>> No, you don't undestand at all. I'll patiently repeat what I said: 
>> With Plurality, nearly any 2 parties can keep on being the top 
>> votegetters at MW equilibrium. With Approval, if one party is 
>> consistently the CW, no other party can win at MW equilibrium. That CW 
>> party will soon win, and will keep winning. And no, that is not true 
>> of all methods.

But wait, Mike. Doesn't that claim depend on voters adopting a certain 
strategy? So your statement is conditioned on a fundamental assumption 
that you did not state. Yet you have the nerve to tell me that my use of 
the word "popular" was not precise enough. In other words, you are 
requiring a higher level of precision from my colloquial statement than 
you provided for your techincal statement. That's a hallmark of 
pedanticism, and you epitomize it, Mike.

> 
> What is it that I don't understand, Mike? You forgot to say. You quoted
> two sentences of mine above, and I want to know which you disagree with
> or shows that I "don't understand at all."
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Alright:
> 
> You don't understand that "voter-median party" and "only popular party" 
> don't mean the same thing.
> 
> You also probably don't understand what you mean by "only popular 
> party". Certainly no one else has a way to know what you mean, and you 
> don't understand that either.

Nobody else knows the meaning of the word "popular." And you can read 
their minds and mine too? You're a fruitcake, Mike.

> You continued:
> 
> Are you claiming that if only one party is "popular," it will not
> "dominate"? Or are you saying that this is not true for "practically any
> democratic system"? Please clarify. I'd really like to know of a
> "democratic system" in which only one party could be popular and yet not
> dominate the elections. That must be a very strange system indeed.
> 
> I reply:\
> 
> No one made any of those statements. No one but you has referred to the 
> only party that is popular.

No, you didn't. But you seemed to imply it, so I asked you if that is 
what you are claiming. Note that I did not simply assume you meant that 
and criticize you for it -- as you did to me on earlier point.

> You continued:
> 
> Now, when a voter tries to plug into one of your formulas, he must
> somehow translate polling data into probabilities. Perhaps I missed it,
> but I don't recall any guidance from you explaining how to do that. Yet
> that may be the harder part of the problem.
> 
> Translating polling data into probabilities involves the mean and the
> variance of the polling data. If either are off, the computed
> probabilities may be useless. In particular, if the error in the mean
> approaches or dominates the error in the variance, then all bets are off.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> If you believe that that is the only possible source of a voter's 
> probabilities, then it would be better if you didn't try to discuss 
> probability.
> 
> Though a voter could use polling data, and the previously-observed 
> variabilitly of its accuracy, to calculate probabiilties, or could 
> similarly use past election results, that certainly isn't the only 
> source of probabilities for the voter. Anyway, only some of the Approval 
> strategies explicitly use probabilities, such as Pij or Pi.

Yes, he could use past elections. But has it occurred to you that many 
voters vote for candidates rather than parties? Usually the party will 
have a different candidate from the last election. That seems to be 
forgotten in a lot of the discussion of Approval strategy.

By the way, you still apparently have no clue about the problem I 
mentioned. And just for the record, I never claimed that the problem I 
pointed out outweighs the benefits of Approval voting.

In most cases, voter's will be able to vote fairly intelligently based 
on pure intuition. But if three or more candidiates are at rough parity, 
your formulas for strategy might not be helpful. Why? The uncertainties 
will dominate the equilibrium. Yes, I need to think more about how to 
explain this problem, especially to pedants like you.

> You continued:
> 
> You think that the WTC
> couldn't have collapsed as it did without pre-installed explosives.
> 
> I've replied to that already, but let me add that you think that the New 
> York Times, the Boston Globe, the Guardian, the Christian Science 
> Monitor, and CNN are all Leftist henchmen of Al Jezeera (to use your own 

There you go again, Mike, confirming that you are indeed a fruitcake. 
And you think the NYT is with you on that, Mike? The NYT is pretty bad, 
Mike, but they are not in your category.

> phrase). That's because they reported things that you don't want to 
> believe about the Fallujah massacre. But then you also believe that 
> evolution of species via natural selection has never taken place and 
> isn't feasible, though you've never been able to defend the fruitcake 
> pseudo-technical objections that you've parroted from somewhere.

There we go with that again. I actually wasted $15 on that book you 
recommended by a theologian. Did you get the book I recommended yet? Of 
course not. Your library "didn't have it." It's called "Not by Chance" 
by Lee Spetner, a prof. of physics at MIT. I could recommend several 
other excellent books too, but I would be wasting my time.

> Most of the errors in your posting were replied to in my previous 
> posting. This one just covers a few that I didn't have time to comment 
> on, the first time.
> 
> You continued:
> 
> Mike, you are a pathetic amateur
> 
> I reply:
> 
> What's this? Before I told you that you no longer have permission to 
> have my articles at your website, you were telling people that I was a 
> "world-class expert". So then, just by denying you permission to have 
> one's atricles at your website, one can go from a world-class expert to 
> a pathetic amateur :-)

That was before I realize that you are a fruitcake, Mike. You may know a 
lot about election methods, but you probably picked it up from others.

Also, when you insisted that I post pseudocode for CSSD at the site, I 
learned a lot about your level of sophistication. I told you that the 
Python code that I had already written essentially serves as pseudocode. 
That's partly why Python is a very "popular" language. (Note that I 
defined the word "popular" above for Mike's sake.) But you said that you 
couldn't understand the Python code. Why? Apparently because it doesn't 
have explicit "endif" and "endfor" statements. You must have a very 
simple mind, Mike. Also, the pseudocode you sent me was poorly organized 
and had errors, which you never noticed even after I asked you to check 
it out on the website. But if someone else had noticed the errors, I 
have no doubt that you would have tried to blame them on me. That's the 
kind of person you are, Mike. You've already proven it.