[Election-Methods] a story for solstice

[rob brown]

On Dec 29, 2007 12:15 AM, CLAY SHENTRUP <clay at electopia.org> wrote:

> jan wrote to rob brown:
> >Your railing against RV is like lobbying against the unsecured
> >vestibule idea. Why are you so keen on FORBIDDING people from casting
> >weak votes / making some of their property available for others to
> >take?
>
> well, the more important question is why he ignores that this is a
> _benefit_ of range voting, since it is effectively the most robust to
> strategic voting.  of course we can use more complex methods that are
> a little better, but impractical for political elections.  the bottom
> line is that rob's criticism of range voting actually is a bigger
> criticism of his "very own" declared strategy voting (which is just
> condorcet), as well as irv/borda/etc.
>

I don't think I claimed to invent DSV, I only used it in an article (
http://karmatics.com/voting/movienite.html ) as an explanatory device.  For
the record, I endorce condorcet as the actual tabulation method.

in that sense, it's actually an
> _endorsement_ of range voting, although he perplexingly fails to
> realize that.


Because I am just as interested in fairness and stability as in
net-short-term-tangible utility, which you claim is the end-all and be-all.

Well, you don't usually use the term "net-short-term-tangible utility", you
just say "social utility", so you can slide it by us as "by definition" what
we want, using statements that distill down to the tautological "we want
what we want".  But then all your "proofs" only count the short term
tangible stuff.

I suppose using your "net-short-term-tangible utility" angle, you could make
the argument that, by definition, the "best" movie is the one with the happy
ending, but the rest of us would see that for the nonsense it is.

Although I think my locked doors analogy (prior to people trying to confuse
matters by talking about intermediate vestibules or the motivations of the
locksmith or whether people had the option of add ing their own locks) was a
better analogy.

I've listened to your arguments at length (in private email, in person, in
other places on the web), and they all miss the concept of long term,
intangible utility, they are based on sloppy definitions, they are filled
with erroneous claims of opinions to be fact.   And for all the words you
use, they sure are simplistic.

You direct response to my story hurts my head with your verbose convolutions
of logic, so I'll skip responding directly to it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20071229/8cd93e32/attachment-0001.htm>