[EM] piling on against IRV

[robert bristow-johnson]

On May 10, 2010, at 11:57 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:

>> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 21:19:45 -0400
>> From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
>> To: election-methods Methods <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>> On May 10, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:55:19 -0400
>>>> From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
>>>> To: election-methods Methods <election- 
>>>> methods at lists.electorama.com>
>>>
>>>>>>> However, that does not alter the fact that .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they have the choice in *either* TTR or IRV.  and *both* can fail
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> arrive at the Condorcet winner
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I said nothing about the fact that IRV/STV tends to eliminate the
>>>>> Condorcet winner prior to the final round,
>>>>
>>>> i never said you did.  you were taking about IRV failing to elect  
>>>> the
>>>> "majority winner" (think about who you mean by such).  in the same
>>>> manner, so also does TTR.
>>>
>>> False claim. *You* were the person to bring up "Condorcet" above,
>>> not I.
>>
>> i never said otherwise.  misrepresentation of another's words.   
>> Strike
>> 1.
>
> Twice (once above) and below these are YOUR words, not mine:
>

you implied that i was denying that i brought up "Condorcet" or tried  
to ascribe the first use of the word to you.  i never denied bringing  
up Condorcet, but reminded you that both IRV and TTR have the same  
failing to elect the "majority winner" (which *is* your words),  
because with the same voter turnout and the voters voting the same,  
both will elect the same candidate, and that candidate, whether it's  
IRV or TTR may very well not be thge "majority winner".


>>>>>> However, that does not alter the fact that .
>>>>>
>>>>> they have the choice in *either* TTR or IRV.  and *both* can fail
>>>>> to
>>>>> arrive at the Condorcet winner
>
> Do you really believe you're fooling everyone here, or are you just
> fooling yourself?
>
>>
>> you were the person to continue to complain about IRV failing to  
>> elect
>> the "majority winner" while simultaneously claiming that somehow TTR
>> does when both would elect the same candidate under comparable
>> conditions.
>>
>>
>>>> TTR doesn't find the majority winner either.  it's no better than  
>>>> IRV.
>>>
>>> False claim. Find *one* TTR election where there was not a majority
>>> winner out of all voters who cast votes in the TTR election.
>>
>> the TTR *together* with the original election (that doesn't have a
>> sufficient majority to resolve the election according to the rules)
>
> Exactly as I said earlier.

no, you were *not* including the original election with the TTR.  i  
was responding to this:

On May 10, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
>
> Any wild distortion of what "majority" means to avoid having it simply
> mean a majority out of all voters who cast votes in the contest during
> the election!!  You really do not see a problem with your
> ever-changing creative definitions of the word "majority" do you?

if you're considering *only* the runoff election, with only two  
candidates, there is no question, between the two, who is has the  
"majority".  but just because there is a "majority winner" in the  
runoff (whether it's TTR or IRV) doesn't mean that *THE* majority  
winner made it to the runoff.  in that case the runoff gave us *A*  
majority winner between two of the losers. whether it's IRV or TTR,  
neither will always find the majority winner which is what i said  
above when i said "TTR doesn't find the majority winner either.  it's  
no better than IRV" to which you immediately responded "False  
claim...".  i answered your challenge.


> You are fabricating yet another perversion
> of the meaning of "majority" to mean a majority out of all the voters
> in the PRIOR election rather than the current election!

i am including *both* the original election that has more than 2  
candidates and the TTR (*or* the final runoff in IRV) as *one*  
election because that is what it is.  the runoff, whether it is  
instant or delayed, is a continuation of the election that began on  
Election Day.  you continue to claim that the candidate elected in the  
runoff of a TTR *must* be *the* "majority winner" but if the same  
candidate was elected in the final runoff of IRV (which would happen  
if the same voters voted the same way in both) somehow cannot be the  
"majority" winner.  and you seem to cling to that even if it's the  
same candidate elected in both cases.

> Between you and Terry,

i'm not Terry.  Terry and i don't agree too much on the value of IRV,  
even if we agree on the mechanics.

> how many clever perversions of the term "majority"

the perversion of "majority winner" i have is the unambiguous majority  
winner that beats every other candidate with a majority of votes when  
the voters are asked to choose between the two (that is the Condorcet  
winner).  i have been consistently trying to steer clear of a notion  
of "majority winner" for some candidate how beats *one* other  
candidate with a majority because only that particular runoff was  
considered.  TTR and IRV both consider only one final runoff between a  
pair of candidates that are selected by their own flawed methods.   
both you and the IRV proponents like to call the winner of your runoff  
*the* "majority winner", but neither you nor the IRV proponents want  
to consider that the unambiguous majority winner might not make it to  
that single runoff given the rules of TTR or IRV.  Condorcet considers  
*every* conceivable runoff pair.  TTR and IRV consider only one  
particular runoff pair and are oblivious to the problem that it might  
be the wrong pair.


> do you think you've invented to try to fool people into
> thinking that IRV/STV finds majority winners

alright.  that's it.  you've misrepresented me for the last time.  the  
last time that i will read anyway, Kathy.

you know, as well as everyone here, that i do not say, nor ever said,  
that IRV consistently finds the majority winner (sometimes it does,  
when it happens to elect the Condorcet winner).  you know, as well as  
everyone else here that i am a sharp critic of IRV.

Abd apparently tried to circumvent my kill-filing of his overly  
verbose EM posts by emailing directly to me his last one (i think it  
was his last one, since any others were deleted upon reception).  i  
want to be open to receiving a regular email from him or you.  but as  
far as my "franchise" with the election-methods list, you have joined  
Abd by being kicked off of it.  and if either of you try to circumvent  
that by emailing me an EM post directly (without "election-methods at lists.electorama.com 
" as any recipient), then i will consider that abuse and killfile all  
email from your address.

you're abusive and dishonest, Kathy.  something i would have hoped you  
would have outgrown 5 decades ago.  such a shame and undignified for a  
woman of your age.

it might be interesting to read how many others have killfiled your  
posts.  because i surely don't see anyone else responding (and i  
wouldn't know if Abd is or not).

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."