[EM] Russ reply, 2 March, ´05, 1151 GMT

[Russ Paielli]

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> Russ said:
> 
> FBC is a great example of a Mike-style criterion that does nothing but
> complicate the idea it attempts to express. Why did Mike create this
> "criterion"? Probably because he didn't understand that other election
> method criteria are based on cast and tally rules votes only.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> What are cast and tally rules votes?? :-)

I had written "cast votes only", then I tried to make it "cast votes and 
tally rules only", but I inserted in the wrong place. I thought about 
sending a clarification, but I decided it wasn't worth the bother (to me 
and everyone else).

> Are you trying to say that other criteria are based on votes rather than 
> preferences? This may be difficult for you to understand, but my goal 
> never was to copy other criteria. If there had been other criteria that 
> made the distinctions that my criteria make, then I wouldn´t have 
> written my criteria.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> And what does FBC mean in standard English? It means that Approval never
> gives any voter any incentive to not approve his favorite candidate,
> whereas plurality, IRV and other methods do.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> No. FBC doesn´t mean that. FBC´s defiition doesn´t mention any voting 
> system. But if you wanted to reword it informally, you could say that 
> FBC complying methods never give anyone incentive to bury their favorite.

I wasn't referring to the formal meaning of FBC. I was referring to its 
application in the real world. I forgot I was talking to a machine.

> Russ continues:
> 
> Thanks for that brilliant
> insight, Mike.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> You mean the one that you asked for permission to put up at your 
> website, and then at first resisted deleting when I told you to delete 
> my contributions from your website?

You never give up, do you, Mike. I didn't "ask for permission" to post 
your criteria. It was a joint endeavor. Remember? Had you not been 
willing to provide material, I would have had no need for you. And did I 
"resist" deleting it from the site when you backed out? No, I didn't. 
What I did was to make an offer to you that we just freeze the site as 
is with only minor corrections when appropriate. That was an offer of 
goodwill toward you, whether you realized it or not.

ElectionMethods.org is now a much better site without your stuff, Mike. 
Losing your input was a plus.

> You know, there´s reason to question Russ´s sincerity about his sudden 
> opposition to my criteria, because he asked me for permission to have 
> them at his website; he kept them at his website for years, he kept 
> asking questions about them, trying to undestand them (but now reveals 
> that he doesn´t understand what he posted at his website); and then 
> strenuously objected when I told him to remove my contributions from his

You live in a fantasy world, Mike. But we knew that already, didn't we.

> website. But within a few days after that request, Russ suddenly 
> discovers that my criteria aren´t "useful", and begins to parrot the 
> objections to them that he´d heard all along.

What happened was that I finally decided to take a closer look at them. 
And what I am learning is very interesting. I have already admitted that 
I was naive in simply trusting you to provide solid material.