[EM] Margins vs. Winning Votes

[Paul Kislanko]

sigh....  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Ketchum [mailto:davek at clarityconnect.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:20 PM
> To: Paul Kislanko
> Cc: 'Juho Laatu'; election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] Margins vs. Winning Votes
> 
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:51:12 -0500 Paul Kislanko wrote:
> 
> >  Dave Ketchum wrote
> > 
> > 
> >>I think we should charge Paul with throwing mud.
> >>
> >>Juho has created a couple examples packaged as basic tie 
> >>elections, with 
> >>one extra vote added in that gives the odd voter full control 
> >>as to winner 
> >>  under wv rules.
> >>
> >>Paul notes - as a big deal - that by not starting with a tie, 
> >>the results 
> >>would be different.
> >>
> > 
> > Paul noted nothing of the sort. So Dave Ketchum is "throwing mud".
> > 
> > Paul noted that there is a qualitative difference between 
> 3-alternative and
> > 2-alternative elections. If Dave wants to dispute that, he 
> is free to
> > disprove Arrow's Theorem and after he gets a Nobel Prize 
> for that he can
> > accuse Paul of throwing mud.
> > 
> What is the difference?

If you don't understand what I said don't attack me.

If you don't understand the difference, you have no standing to attack me.

Why did you bring this up as an attack against me in the first place, since
all I was trying to do was help the poster who claimed that results from a
2-alternative election could be generalized to a 3-alternative election,
which was proven to be impossible 55 years ago.


> 
> 
> Juho was setting up ties.  He did it with two alternatives:
>       1000 A>B
>       1000 C>D
> 
> How would adding in the following make a difference?
>       1000 E>F
> 
> Remember that the topic is ties, rather than splitting up a 
> district with 
> a fixed quantity of real voters.  The district could have had 
> 3000 real 
> voters in 2 groups of 1500 or 3 groups of 1000 - or whatever made the 
> desired example.

No. The topic of my post was "you can't generalize from 2-alternative
elections to 3-alternative elections."

I never talked about ties, I never talked about any of your dribble. "The
topic is ties"???? Where did you get THAT from? It wasn't in anything *I*
wrote, but you attacked ME.

All we know now is that you can't stay on topic, but delight in attacking
other posters.