[EM] Juho,5/25/12, roughly 2230 UT

[Michael Ossipoff]

Juho:

 

I'm not going to reply to the repetition and vagueness that constitutes the
rest of your post, but I'll answer this silly question that you've asked.
Your question is silly partly because it asks for a definition that I've
given here many times. But also because it asks if I meant something
different from what I said. ("Silly" is the polite word for the content of
the post to which I'm replying,and your other ones).

 

I'd said:

 

> If it's a u/a election, and if Compromise is the only acceptable who can
beat the unacceptables, then rank Compromise alone in 1st place.

 

Maybe one can build an implementable strategy from this one. Some further
definitions are however needed. What is the definition of and how will the
voters determine if the election is a u/a election?

 

[endquote]

 

I've many times given definitions of a u/a election. An election is u/a for
you if, for you, it has one or more unacceptable candidates who might win.
And when someone objects that "unacceptable" is undefined,  this is what
I've said: An election is, for you, u/a if, for you, the candidates can be
divided into two sets such that the merit differences within each set are
negligible in comparison to the merit difference between the sets.

 

For the purposes of criteria, I've defined u/a in terms of voting, in a way
that is consistent with the above definition involving 2 sets. And no, I
won't re-post it. It's among the discussion of the possibility of a u/a FBC
criterion, maybe roughly a week ago, give or take some days.

 

Juho says:

 

Also terms "compromise"

 

[endquote]

 

I refer Juho to a dictionary, if he wants to find out what "compromise"
means. 

 

I've been using "Compromise" as the name of a candidate in some of my
discussions, and in some of my criterion definitions. As such, for that
purpose, the word needn't be defined, because it is a name, not a term.

 

Juho says:

 

, "acceptable" and "unacceptable" have to be defined. 

 

[endquote]

 

As I've been saying, of the two sets referred to in the above-stated
definition, the "acceptable set" is the one that the voter in question
prefers to the other set. That other set is the "unacceptable set". An
acceptable candidate is a candidate in the acceptable set. An unacceptable
candidate is a candidate in the unacceptable set.

 

[endquote]

 

Does "rank Compromise alone in 1st place" mean lifting one of the candidates
in the ranked vote to first place while keeping the others as they are?

 

[endquote]

 

If Juho doesn't know what it means to rank a candidate alone in 1st place,
then I again refer him to a dictionary.

 

Actually, this part of Juho's post didn't deserve a reply either. I answered
it only because he's taken on a new tactic, one of asking for definitions. I
don't want anyone to

think that I'm not willing to supply definitions of terms that I use. But
the definitions Juho asked for were each from one of two types: Definitions
already posted by me; and definitions available in any dictionary.

 

Mike Ossipoff

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120523/99cbc232/attachment.htm>