[EM] Richard's Angry posting

[Michael Ossipoff]

Richard says:

As long as Michael has mistakenly posted this DM article on the forum

[endquote]

It isn't an article. It's an article-under-construction. I sometimes
send, to myself, copies of partially completed articles that I'm
writing. In this instance, I accidentally sent the copy to EM instead.
the article still needs fixing, and I it wasn't ready to be submitted.

I'd asked EM's TUC advocates to tell what mitigating advantages they
think it has, so that my articles can include opposing arguments.

Richard says:

I'll use this opportunity to say to Adrian that I have stopped reading
Michael's articles at Democracy Chronicles for the reasons below.  (And
often I delete his posts here without reading them.)

[endquote]

...But he read that posting/article  :-) Maybe he meant that _now_
he's stopped :-)

Richard isn't an indicator of how popular my articles are.

If Richard wants to say that I've said something incorrect, or if he
disagrees with me in any way, he needs to be specific. Merely
reporting that he doesn't read my articles or my EM posts isn't enough
to establish that I've said something incorrect, or that his
strongly-expressed (but vague) disagreement has validity.

Richard says:

His DM articles go off into a world of his own

[endquote]

Can we guess that Richard means "DC" instead of "DM"?

I write about the world in which drastic strategy-needs can and do
distort people's voting, causing major misrepresentation of people's
preferences. The worst strategy problems are the main topic of my
articles, because they're the main problem of voting systems.

So then, what world does Richard live in? Some world beyond La-La
Land, where his "VoteFair", with its pages-long definition that no one
will read, and its NP-Hard count-computation, will be accepted and
enacted?

...or maybe he lives in a world in which expressing his dislike for
articles, and reporting that he doesn't read them, can serve as a
substitute for actually stating an error in the articles or telling
exactly what he thinks is wrong about them.

Richard says;

, including his own
terminology (e.g. TUC and ICT).

[endquote]

ICT isn't as original as Richard would imply. "Improved Condorcet" is
a term coined by Kevin Venzke, when he introduced
Improved-Condorcet-Approval (ICA).

When Chris Benham introduced an Improved Condorcet method that used a
top-count as its completion, then, in keeping with Kevin's
terminology, I called it Improved-Condorcet-Top (ICT).

Hardly original or new terminology.

As for TUC: In every post or article in which I use that term, I state
what it stands for: "traditional unimproved Condorcet". I've defined
that as referring to Condorcet methods other than the relatively new
(and not traditional) Improved Condorcet methods. Traditional
unimproved Condorcet is named so as to emphasize the distinction
between it and the newer Improved Condorcet.

As I've often said in voting system discussions, I don't object to
someone's terminology, as long as they define their terms and use them
consistently.

Sometimes, when discussing a little-discussed or new distinction, or
when speaking of a new method or criterion, it's necessary to use new
terminology.

For example, I introduced and named some often mentioned, used or
referred-to criteria, including Favorite-Betrayal Criterion (FBC) and
Mutual-Majority Criterion (MMC). And some newer ones such as Chicken
Dilemma Criterion (CD), 0-Info Later-No-Help (ZLNHe), and maybe
others. When I introduced and began advocating the winning-votes
Condorcet methods (now probably the most popular class of rank
methods), I coined the term "winning-votes", a term that continues in
use. When I introduced Symmetrical ICT, I named it.

So sure, I've used new terms a few times.

Richard says:

Also there are too many sentences for
which his intended meaning is unclear (e.g. sentence #2 here).

[endquote]

I haven't checked what sentence #2 says. But Richard needs to be
specific if he wants to say that others of my sentences are unclear.
If there's something that he doesn't understand, of course he's
welcome to ask.

Also, I repeat that the "article" that Richard is referring to is
actually not a completed, finished article. It is not in the form that
it will be in when I send it.

Richard says:

Also the
topics jump around so quickly that it's dizzying.

[endquote]

The topics being discussed are often involved, with many aspects to
discuss. Sometimes it's difficult to choose where to start. I usually
organize what I'm saying as well as possible. But I can't make it
simpler for Richard than it is. It's easy for Richard to criticize
coverage of a subject with many aspects to answer and comment
on--because he isn't the one writing about such subjects.

But now we get to Richard's "most important" objection:

Richard says:

Most importantly he
avoids explaining some very important voting-method concepts, yet makes
indirect references to those concepts (e.g. none of the DM articles have
yet described the concept of Condorcet compliance [and its advantage],

[endquote]

We can assume that, by "DM", he means "DC"?

In some of my first DC articles, i discussed the Condorcet Criterion
(CC), and its importance in pre-election informational polling.

(Oh that's right--He doesn't read my articles. But maybe not reading
them doesn't really qualify him to comment on what they do or don't
cover.).

Richard says:

yet he refers to disadvantages of Condorcet methods).

[endquote]

Yes, I speak of disadvantages of Condorcet methods (including ICT,
Symmetrical ICT, and TUC) in comparison to Approval and Score.

Those disadvantages consist of failure of the Participation Criterion,
the Consistency Criterion, and the Independence from Irrelevant
Alternatives Criterion.

...and a much more computation intensive count, which will probably
need machine balloting and computer-counting--with the consequent
incomparably greater count-fraud vulnerability. And an arbitrariness
that Approval and Score don't have, because there are infinitely many
ways to count ranked ballots.

I've also discussed disadvantages of TUC in comparison to ICT and
Symmetrical ICT, as well as in comparison to Approval and Score.

As for the Condorcet Criterion: I've made it clear that compliance
with the Condorcet Criterion is made meaningless and worthless by
TUC's drastic strategy needs, resulting from failure of FBC and CD,
that will make nonsense out of TUC rankings.

Richard says:

I'm just wanting to keep things real

[endquote]

Richard isn't being very clear with us about in what sense he's
keeping things real.

Richard says:

, and let you know that he does not
represent the views of at least some election-method experts.

[endquote]

My writing isn't intended to "represent" anyone else.

As for "does not represent the views of at least some election-method
experts", election-method experts don't agree on everything.  The fact
that "at least some" election-method experts might not be represented
by what I say therefore doesn't mean anything.

The composition of the EM mailing changes over the decades. Right now
EM is short on Approvalists, and long on TUC advocates.

It isn't clear what Richard means by "represent". Maybe he means that
I don't speak for every election-method expert. But that would be
impossible, because they don't all agree on everything..

But I made a point of asking EM's TUC advocates to tell of mitigating
properties of TUC, to outweigh the disadvantages that I'd discussed,
so that I could "represent" their arguments in my articles, for the
sake of fairness, letting other opinions and arguments be heard.

Though EM composition has been constantly shifting over the decades,
the discussion of TUC hasn't changed any.Same criteria, same methods,
same postings. TUC is long overdue for some questioning.

Michael