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

robert bristow-johnson rbj at audioimagination.com
Thu Jan 21 12:45:29 PST 2010

On Jan 21, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> 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.

better say what "it" is right now, or you're just blowing smoke (to  
make use of another metaphor).

> 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.

it wasn't me that amplified the length of text by a factor of 10.  i  
was trying to keep it focused and my mistake was responding to your  

> 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.


(quoting Warren Smith.)

> 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.

more blather.

> (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.

sometimes "effective public speakers" are "successful" not because of  
their efforts to focus the issue, but because of their efforts to  
distract.  e.g. Sarah Palin.

>> 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'm not messing with it further.  i just ask that you don't amplify  
the quantity of responses by a factor of 10 and bring your post to  
40K so that if anyone actually bothers to read through it and respond  
to most or all of the points, their effort goes into the trash can.   
since your name was in the To: header, you got that response, but no  
one else did.

what i have learned from that is to not play your "argumentum  
verbosium" game.  from now on, i must pick and choose, respond to  
only one point, delete all the other blather, and keep the issue  

thus i am deleting and not bothering to engage in the other text.

care to discuss how many piles one needs (for "precinct summability")  
when there are N candidates?  or N credible candidates?  that's what  
the issue was before it was buried in blather.


r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list