[EM] Margins vs. Winning Votes

[Dave Ketchum]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:59:12 -0500 Paul Kislanko wrote:

> 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."


The thread is Juho's.

As he said in a followup, he is doing a tie election - does not matter how 
many candidates, so long as the result is ties for most pairs, with lass 
votes for some.  To this he adds one unique voter and analyzes the result.

If extra voters or extra candidates are added in nothing new happens 
provided the ties are maintained - which can be done by such as assuming 
extra voters.

Paul seems to have assumed a different intent than Juho's - which does 
nothing but generate sparks.

> 
> 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.

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.