[EM] Kristofer: MMPO objections

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'd said:

> Because of the great desirability of avoiding the ABE problem, it's
> worth considering or looking at
> all sorts of possible solutions.
>
> MMPO and MDDTR are known to work fine, though they have vulnerability to
> non-valid criticisms.

Kristofer replies:

If you're referring to Kevin's example, I don't think you can call the 
MMPO criticism inherently "non-valid". To quote yourself, in an earlier 
post:

> You (Kristofer Munsterhjelm -ed) wrote:
>
>> You could of course argue that "if I gave it to B, A would have been
>> just as unhappy, and if I gave it to A, B would have been just as
>> unhappy, so I dare you to show me the particular group that has been
>> wronged by this". I still think that you can say that you wronged the
>> two groups as a whole
>
> [endquote]
>
> Ok, sure. You may have wronged them collectively, by electing someone over whom
> no one in either group prefers anyone other than their favorite.
>
> The question is, how badly does that wrong them?
>
> Badly enough to give up FBC, SFC, LNHa, CD, and Mono-Add-Plump?
>
> The ABE problem might be a peculiarly American problem. I don't expect others
> to recognize it as a problem. We have the Republocrats, and, additionally, lots of
> small factions who are terribly mutually antagonistic, jealous, and rivalry-inclined; but
> which, together, might add up to a majority.

This, I took to mean that with MMPO, you pay some to get some 
compliances you want. You "pay" by having the method exhibit the strange 
results in Kevin's example, and you get FBC, SFC, LNHarm, etc., in return.

[endquote]

Fair enough. Strange, but not seriously wrong.

Kristofer continued:

Furthermore, your "might be a peculiarly American problem"... 

[endquote]

I can't justify the statement that I made in that quote. In fact, it's ridiculous
to say that the co-operation/defection problem might be peculiar to one particular country.
So I withdraw that ridiculous statement.

Kristofer continued (in the same sentence):

...then suggests 
that there's nothing inherently non-valid about the criticism.

[endquote]

No, the criticism's nonvalidity doesn't depend on the ridiculous suggestion that the
co-operation/defection problem might be peculiar to one particular country.

The criticism is nonvalid because it can't be any more valid than the claim that someone
is seriously wronged by the election of someone over whom no one prefers anyone other than
their favorite.

Kristofer continues:

You say 
that it is non-valid from your own point of view, where you think the 
tradeoff made by MMPO is worth it. 

[endquote]

Kindly don't quote me saying something that I didn't say.

I told why the criticism is nonvalid. See my paragraph above.

Others (like me) may have different 
opinions. 

[endquote]

If you're saying you have an opinion that someone is seriously wronged by the election of
someone over whom no one prefers anyone other than their favorite, then can you tell us
in what way that seriously wrongs someone, or are you merely expressing a personal opion
(as, of course, is your right)?

Kristofer continued:

Saying that you're willing to make the tradeoff is quite a 
different thing than saying that the criticism (e.g. MMPO's Plurality 
failure) is inherently invalid.

[endquote]

Quite so. I'm saying both things.

The criticism is nonvalid, for the simple reason that I stated.

I'd conceded that, if you want to combine the A and B plumpers as plaintiffs
in a class-action lawsuit, then it could be argued that, when considered together,
they're _slightly_ wronged.

But the dependence on that prestidigitation doesn't inspire any confidence in the
"wrongedness.  ...when you can't show that the A voters themselves, as a group, or
the B voters themselves, as another group, are wronged by the election of someone
to whom they don't prefer anyone other than their favorite.

All voting system standards and criteria come down to a matter of opinion about 
what is important and what isn't. And what is more important than something else.

I suggest that it's important to get rid of the worse strategy problems. 

Maybe you don't agree with me about that. Fine. There's no reason why we should
all agree in our purposes and goals. You aren't wrong.

What (I suggest) is "nonvalid" is your claim that the A plumpers or the B plumpers are wronged
badly enough to give up important method-properties. --But, as I said, that's a 
subjective judgement, and maybe you have very different notions about what is important.
You aren't wrong. By your own, different, personal purposes, your criticism could be
valid.

Wronged a little? Maybe. Wronged seriously enough to give up anything desirable? No.
Not valid, I say. 

(But, again, I disclaim that it's for you, and you only, to say what is important
or desirable to you)

Mike Ossipoff




 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111229/1198d03f/attachment-0003.htm>