[EM] IRV vs Plurality (back to the pile count controversy)

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

WARNING: this is a metacommunication, about the communication process 
here and elsewhere in voting system advocacy, not about voting methods, per se.

At 01:48 AM 1/21/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>Variation on previous post. Silly time!
>>
>>At 02:31 PM 1/16/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 16, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Robert, your slip is showing.
>>>
>>>what slip?  i don't have nuttin' under me kilt.
>>
>>We already knew that.
>
>you do?  you keep saying that you can see it.

Yes, I said that. "Slip is showing" is a metaphor, stating that 
something relatively unmentionable is visible. I can see something. 
Others can see something. Do you see or know what we see? Perhaps you 
do, but you are defending yourself as if you cannot see it. Others 
who do see it might respond differently.

This is meta talk, it's about the communication, not election 
methods. I will therefore limit it to what's relevant to the 
*extended* purposes of this list, which include voting system 
advocacy, not merely theory.

If you are going to be a public advocate, you will be much more 
effective if you know how your actions and words will be seen, and if 
you can learn as much as possible about debate tactics and strategy.

>>Silly hat, Off.
>>
>>Robert, if you want to be effective in public debate,
>
>what makes you think i'm not effective?  do you actually think you
>were effective?

1. I suspect you are less effective than you can be. You get caught, 
easily, in irrelevancies, distracting from the central points to be 
conveyed. As a public activist, to be effective, you must use polemic 
and all the skills of advocacy, which is different from discussion. 
Here, we discuss, and no collective decisions are actually made here. 
However, I inferred from behavior here what might happen in a public 
debate. If, in fact, some of this behavior carries over to public 
debate, you could get creamed. Unnecessarily. That is, over your own 
style and personality, not over the issue you are advocating.

2. Was I effective? In what? I'm engaged only in a diffuse kind of 
advocacy here. However, I've also repeated ideas that I've expressed 
here many times, and this is part of my own learning and polishing 
process. This is of benefit to those who find it useful to follow my 
discussions, to explore these topics repeatedly so that they become 
familiar, and so that deeper understanding spreads. It's my method 
and approach, and it certainly is not for everyone. Were I to do in a 
public forum, not a specialized forum like this, what I do here, I'd 
almost completely fail.

(3.) I have, however, come to the point that I'm sufficiently 
familiar with the issues that I'd engage, if invited, in public 
debate. I'm an effective speaker, making clear and direct contact 
with the audience. We'll see if that happens. I have made blog posts 
in public fora on these issues, they are far briefer, in general. The 
effort per word and per message is much higher for them.

>i won't slap on the "argumentum verbosium" and explode the debate
>about a single testable issue (like how many piles one needs if there
>are 3 candidates) into pages and pages, that when i responded, my
>post was rejected by the list server as too large.

Oh, we are crushed at the loss.... actually, usually it isn't exactly 
rejected, it is held for moderator approval, which can take some time. Depends.

>>I'd suggest avoiding setting up an immediate victory by the other
>>side by feeding him or her lines like that.
>
>you're the one feeding lines.

Sure. Like a debate opponent might. "Your slip is showing" is a 
metacommunication to the audience, calling attention very briefly to 
the opponent's behavior, or sometimes to an issue of substance 
(possibly). As an ad hominem argument, it's irrelevant, but in real 
debate, it could be very important. People respond to the person, 
usually, more than to the substance. They judge the substance by the 
person. Only in careful deliberative process is this effect reduced much.

>   who brought up the "slip showing" in
>the first place?

Me. A stand-in for your debate opponent. However, it wasn't intended 
as a debate tactic, but as personal advice, which you could take or 
leave. You took it, in fact, but as if it were bait in a debate, and 
you also took, therefore, the hook and the line. And in so doing, you 
got jerked out of the water. My judgement. Yours might be different, 
but if you really want to know, ask someone neutral.

>   how does one respond when facing: "Your slip is
>showing, now onto a verbose response that does not speak to the core
>factual issues at all".

How? It's actually terminally easy. No response at all is probably 
the most efficient. A quick joke, though, may be even more efficient. 
Learn to think on your feet, if you have to puzzle over this, no 
response is better. "Robert, your slip is showing" was very efficient 
for me, it took, literally, seconds, it was the very simple 
expression, using metaphor, if an observation, dicta as to the 
substance here. Don't get caught by dicta if you don't want to get 
derailed. In this case, you revealed by the subsequent discussion, 
wasting your time, that a personal comment can snag you. If I were to 
engage with you in public debate, I'd now know this. Don't you think 
that's useful. If you know it as well, instead of struggling to deny 
it, you could benefit even more, and your cause as well.

>you and Kathy had no "victory" (if that is the way you like looking
>at it).

It isn't. Kathy is here to learn, I'm here to learn and practice. And you?

>   where it is about fact (derived or historically supported)
>regarding the focussed issue, you haven't done anything to touch it.

That's another matter and I'll address it separately. But Robert 
returned to the issue below, so I might cover this more in my next response.