[EM] Lomax reply

[Michael Ossipoff]

Lomax quotes Warren:

At 12:41 PM 2/10/2007, Warren Smith wrote: > >WDS: In IEVS, presently, equal 
rankings are forbidden in rank-order methods. > >MO: which (like Warren's 
other assumptions) makes the results meaningless. > >--WDS: While I agree it 
would be nice if IEVS did equal rankings, >and I plan to make >a future 
version do that, >(a) I do not agree I ever made any "assumption" here. >I 
simply described the status of IEVS. I did not "make an assumption." >(b) I 
do not agree every result in the universe that concerns rank >order voting 
methods >is "meaningless."

Lomax continues:

I have a policy of not replying directly to Ossipoff, there is a history of 
endless debate that turns over details of "you said," and "I said,"

I reply:

…and a history of run-on sentences?

Well, when you post something that you’re claiming that I said, then yes, 
that does raise the question of whether or not I really said it.

Lomax continues:

endless argument that goes nowhere.

I reply:

If Lomax has an argument that goes somewhere, then I invite him to go 
somewhere with it.

Lomax continues:

Here Warren noted in his post that IEVS did not presently allow equal 
rankings. He was listing this as a shortcoming of IEVS. Ossipoff apparently 
turned this into an assumption that there was something defective about 
equal rankings.

I reply:

I did? What I said was that that, whether you call that an assumption or a 
premise of the simulation, it renders the simulation’s results irrelevant 
with regard to the Condorcet methods that we propose. If Lomax wants to 
claim that I said that Warren assumed that there was something defective 
about equal rankings, then I invite Lomax to post the date and time of the 
posting in which I said that.

If Mr. Lomax doesn’t want discussion about what someone said, then he might 
try not misquoting people so sloppily.


Warren is correct. He simply described the status of IEVS, which has not yet 
been programmed to allow equal rankings in ranked methods. The charge that 
his results are therefore "meaningless" is, well, silly. Many 
implementations of ranked methods don't allow equal ranking, in the real 
world.

Perhaps Mr. Lomax is referring to IRV implementations? Suggesting that that, 
or some other non-Condorcet method, has some relevance to a simulation 
involving Condorcet is, well, silly.

No Condorcet version proposed by any participant on EM disallows equal 
rankings. Of course maybe Warren ran his simulation to test Tideman’s 
no-equal-ranking Condorcet method <smiley>.

Lomax continues;

Yes, as Ossipoff points out, most of us would prefer equal ranking (which 
actually turns ranked methods into something closer to Range, or at least to 
Approval). But programming equal ranking is trickier, if you are using issue 
space analysis to determine votes. At what level of preference do you decide 
to rank equally? Or what other factors influence the use of equal ranking? 
It is actually a *lot* more complex.

I reply:

Oh, then let’s disregard equal rankings, even though no EM participant 
proposes a Condorcet method that disallows equal rankings. If it’s too 
complex, then maybe Warren is getting in over his head?

Lomax continues:


And, yes, it is necessary for Warren's results to have wider application. 
But they are not at all "meaningless" as they stand. ----

I reply:

Search out their meaning, Mr. Lomax!

This posting that I’m now replying to is a good example of the kind that 
really wastes our time. It consists of a blatant misquote, and other claims 
that are flimsy enough that discussion of them wastes our time.


Mike Ossipoff