[EM] Warren needs to double check his work.
km_elmet at lavabit.com
Fri Jun 28 00:47:12 PDT 2013
On 06/25/2013 07:15 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
> KM2:So you're saying that nothing short of actually trying the
> experiment in public elections will change your mind?
> Then I believe I am done here. I can't change your position, so all I
> can do is to argue to others that your position is flawed.
> dlw2: Yes, our diffs are epistemic. The thought experiments commonly
> used here are not persuasive to me, since I'm trying to hold onto a
> realistic notion of voters that views voter-utilities or political
> spectrumes as at best useful heuristics.
Congratulations. You have just said that your anti-evidence armor is
*so* strong that nothing I could ever produce today would change your
mind. No argument, no proof, whether it be from the US or outside it,
from national or international organizations, from theory or practice.
No piece of it can change your mind, not a one.
That sounds awfully like faith to me. And I know that arguing with a man
of faith is a losing proposition. If you ever wonder why people act
"unprofessional" and don't respond to your assertions, perhaps it's
because there's no compromise to be found. Eventually, even a fool tires
of arguing with a wall.
But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. The way you make use of your
general defenses is entirely consistent with your statement that nothing
can convince you, because you seem to think that each defense is
absolute and frees you from having to actually address an objection.
When you reply to any of my references to other nations by "American
exceptionalism", you never say how much evidence would be necessary to
put the claim of extremely specific American exceptionalism into doubt.
You just use it as a general defense, a way of brushing away every
When you come with assertions that anybody not agreeing with you in
Burlington is either a useful fool or one of Them, you never bother
backing this up with an actual money trail, nor do you reconcile it with
reports that it was the IRV campaign who got the most out-of-town money,
let alone account for the extreme specificity (violation of Occam's
razor) required to claim that we, on a mailing list somewhere, are being
manipulated by some Shadowy Others. You just use it as a general defense.
And when I object that you can't just claim this and that and this too,
and then be free of any counter, you reach for your meta-armor: "Sunk
cost immunity!". Like some diplomat holding up a wallet, you seem to
think that it is absolute: that it can make any requests for evidence
evaporate, no matter how particular the claim being tested is. You never
specify when the sunk cost might be met, and you never say how
tangential a claim has to be before it is no longer protected by sunk
cost immunity. Apparently any claim (American exceptionalism, very
specific economies of scale, conspiracy) will be protected as long as it
can be somehow linked up with a pro-IRV position.
Why not just claim that US voters get an instinctual satisfaction in
watching the IRV process run to completion, and so that no other method
can provide what IRV provides? You'd be done with it once and for all.
Then when someone else asks for evidence, just pull out your wallet
again. Ridiculous? Yes, but that's because it doesn't match your
intuition. The logic is the same: "anything pro-IRV is protected by sunk
Instead of specific counters, you use general defenses. I liked you
better when you bothered to look into the facts and then said that
perhaps Brazil isn't applicable to my point because it is a
dominant-party system. But nowadays it doesn't appear you have the time
for that. It doesn't appear you have time to check my data, either, or
you'd find out that Olson's results about IRV and Condorcet error
resistance aren't contingent on there being many candidates. But it's so
easy to just use another general defense, another catch-all armor plate:
in this case the "it doesn't matter when there are few candidates"
response that has served you so well against advanced methods in the past.
But I should thank you for making clear what you had previously only
shown in an indirect, sneaky manner: that there is nothing that can
change your mind. Then I know there is no point in continuing the
discussion, except perhaps as to show others just how much you stack the
So enjoy your anti-evidence armor, and thanks for telling me what you
otherwise only implied. Your persistent special pleading and refusal to
follow the same rules and courtesy of discourse as everybody else just
angers me. In so doing, you only drive me further from the IRV campaign.
And so I am tempted to recommend you continue your "logic" and thus
repel even more people. But nobody should have to face this sniping,
this special pleading, this armored presumption of being invincible. So
I am not going to recommend that.
All who'd feel like arguing with DLW, remember what he said about no
current evidence being able to convince him. All third parties who come
upon this, remember what (bit) role DLW has in order for you on the
That is all. Goodbye and good *plonk*.
More information about the Election-Methods