[EM] How we can get a better voting system. Injured innocence.

[Michael Ossipoff]

In my long participation at EM, and other voting-system forums, and
other forums on various other topics, I've encountered many time, all
of the dishonest debate tactics. Jameson hasn't invented a new one,
but he's taken angry, hypocritical injured innocence to a new extreme.

The re-use and re-cycling of already-answered arguments, without
answering the answers, is of course probably the most common dishonest
tactic at EM.

People don't always _consciously_ use dishonest tactics. But sometimes
people are being dishonest with themselves, and the tactics are
subconsciously tempting.

The best way to comment is to quote the most recent posts:




2013/1/16 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>

> 2013/1/14 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>
> > 2013/1/14 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> > >
> > > IRV will be the next voting system, and that's very much ok.
> > >
> > >
> > Michael's statement above is based on the idea that voting reform will
> > happen through a third party gaining majority power. I believe that this
> > is, frankly, a pipe dream.

Well, I'd said that IRV would be the next voting system, and I'd been
saying that the Greens would win if people read the platforms and
voted in their own best interest.
I never made the prediction that that would happen. I'd been clear
about that. Jameson wouldn't put words in my mouth, would he? :-)
This is an example of why I used, above, the word "hypocritical".



> >
> > [endquote]
> >
> > Jameson thinks that the Democrat-Republican two-party system
> > represents the will of the people.
> >
> > I've addressed that matter previously, and if Jameson still holds that
> > belief, it would be pointless to say any more to him about it.
> >
>
> Jameson says:
>
> I would really, really appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

So touchy, so sensitive, so easily-offended, so primadonna. I was
trying to get at what Jameson meant, and I was taking a good guess.
Sometimes a guess is all that's possible.

If someone believes that the election of a Green government is a
"pipe-dream", then doesn't that imply that the person also believes
that the Democrat-Republican two-party system represents the will of
the people? If it isn't, then the election of a non-Republocrat
government is likely, under honest voting. Or did Jameson mean that
honest voting is a pipe-dream. Who knows? In any case, if the speaker
doesn't say what he means, then he really has no reason to complain if
someone guesses.





> I
> emphatically do not believe that, and in fact if you're going to continue
> to mischaracterize me like that

Translation: "...if you're going to continue to try to guess what I mean."



, after I've previously asked you not to, I
> see no reason to continue to read your argument here.
>
> [endquote]
>
> Translation: You don't have an answer to it.
>

As I said, repeating and re-using already-answered arguments and
claims has always been a common tactic at EM.

 I've specifically told you that I voted against Obama; you assume
for me that I voted for him.

[endquote]

No, I never made that statement after you told me that you voted against him.

But, in previous discussions, you argued that progressives should vote
Democrat, because only a Democrat or a Republican can win. No, I'm not
putting words in your mouth. You were saying that. With you having
said that, how unfair is it for someone to assume that you voted for
Obama, after you'd been advocating that kind of voting? The word
"hypocritical" suggests itself again.

Jameson said:

I have on several occasions spoken about norms
of debate, including not putting words in people's mouths

[endquote]

See above.

As for "norms of debate", I've been around these debates a lot, and
re-use of arguments and claims that have already been answered has
always been common here. At EM it would be impractical to have a "norm
of debate" that says you can't point out likely instances of the
common dishonest tactics, or try to guess what someone means,when he
hasn't clearly said what he means.

Jameson has certainly, more than once, made use of the "re-use without
answerinng" tactic.

In the recent discussion of MJ, Jameson stayed with the discussion,
until I asked him to verify his claims about MJ strategy. No answer.
Of course, giving no answer can be fairly taken to mean that he had no
answer.

Anyway, he stayed with the discussion up to the point when we arrived
at the fact that either MJ's strategy is unknown, or the same as that
of Approval--depending on such election-attributes such as u/a and
0-info.

No problem. Jameson just doesn't answer, and then later quietly will
resume his claims about MJ. If you can't win an argument, you can
sneak around it and wait till people forget the discussion, and then
repeat your claims. As I said, I've been around all this quite a bit.

If you want to advocate and argue for MJ, do so honestly.

Angry, hypocritical injured innocence.

By the way, of course I'm not at this forum for the purpose of being
read or replied to by Jameson. For me, my purpose here is that I'm
doing my part. What anyone else does isn't relevant.
Others' conduct isn't my responsibility or concern. I've posted here
because there were things about voting systems that should be said.

Jameson probably believes that now he has a very convenient good
excuse (the terrible insult from me) for completely failing to defend
his claims about MJ, in the previous, separate, discussion. ("You
insulted me, and, though I could defend MJ in that discussion, now I
don't have to."

Of course he doesn't _have to_.  But the real reason he didn't is
because he can't.

Mike Ossipoff