[EM] Voting-System Choice for Polls (Just one more thing I want to say)

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Markus Schulze <
markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Hallo,
>
> Mike Ossipoff is still not giving a definition
> for the terms "necessarily" / "unnecessarily".
>

The definitions of those words can be found in any dictionary.

In my previous post, I explained and justified my use of those words.

Anyone considering a choice between Beatpath & MAM can judge that
justification for hirself.

Sorry if that Markus doesn't like that. He's obviously "grasping at straws".

Experience has made it abundantly clear that Markus will never admit that
he was wrong, and will attempt even the most indefensible arguments & the
most (shall we say) ingenuous techniques to assert his rightness.


>
> What he is doing is: He is giving an explanation
> why, in his opinion, those instances where
> Tideman's ranked pairs method violates his
> desideratum are justifiable.


Markus is, here, repeating what he said before. So I'll repeat my answer:

The "desideratum" referred to is honoring a voted public preference. I
spoke at length, in my previous post, about what could make it necessary to
not do so.

...and yes, "justifiable too".



> He does this by
> repeating the underlying heuristic of the
> ranked pairs method.
>

Speaking of repeating, Markus is now repeating what he said before, which
I've already answered. Continual dogged repetition of already-answered
arguments & claims is perhaps Markus' favorite tactic.

Alright, I'll answer it one more time, but that's all.

As I said, Markus is all confused, and has it backwards:

When I told about what would make necessary the disregarding of a
pairwise-defeat, I was doing so from basic, widely-agreed principles &
premises.  ...starting with a discussion of what a pairwise-defeat says,
and how a cycle affects its meaning.

I wasn't repeating something having its origin in MAM's definition, or
something that has its origin as an argument for MAM. As for what I *was*
telling, I refer you to the paragraph before this one.

Then, after discussing  what could (from widely agreed-on principles &
premises--not by a method's rules) obviously make it necessary to disregard
a voted public preference, I quoted the definition of MAM, and pointed out
that MAM's definition and rule regarding "affirmation" are (yes) a
re-statement of that.

...a re-statement of what, for a method that seeks to honor a public
pairwise preference if possible, would make it necessary to disregard a
voted public preference.

That isn't a coincidence. And it doesn't mean that the initial discussion
is just a copying of MAM's rule, or derived from arguments for MAM. It
results from MAM being devised to not avoidably (by the independent obvious
standards, from obvious & widely agreed-on principles & premises) disregard
a voted public preference. That's a person's admitted purpose when
advocating MAM. That's the motivation for MAM's rule.

That's why MAM doesn't unnecessarily disregard a voted public preference (a
pairwise defeat). And that's why, when MAM & Beatpath give different
winners, the MAM winner will be publicly-preferred to Beatpath's winner, in
a large majority of instances (It was probably something like a factor of 4
or 5).

I hope that's clear now.  ...but Markus willl again repeat what he said, as
he always does.


>
> However, to be able to check whether an election
> method satisfies a criterion it should be
> sufficient to know the definition for this method.
> It should not be necessary to know and to agree
> to the underlying heuristic of this method.


No one's asking Markus to know or agree on the underlying heuristic of MAM.

The initial discussion, about what a pairwise-defeat means, and how being
in a cycle affects its meaning, and, from those things, the matter of what
would nullify a defeat, & what would make it necessary to disregard a
defeat (if a winner must be someone without a defeat)...None of that is
derived from, or has its origin in, MAM's definition or rule, or arguments
for MAM.

The principles & premises, widely agreed-upon, aren't things that Markus
should have any trouble agreeing with.

But Markus will never admit that, and will just keep on repeating his
already-answered arguments and mis-statements, as he always has done, as
his favorite tactic.

...quite in violation of EM's guidelines for conduct.

I have to admit that I'm not enjoying my brief return from retirement from
voting-systems.

I returned to the list because I wanted to mention and ask about

Pairwise-Winner(MAM,   Smith,MMPO)

and

Pairwise-Winner(MAM,   Smith//MMPO)

...because it seems that at least one of those would be useful for polling
an electorate in which there are likely to be at least some people who are
inclined toward offensive truncation, burial, &/or chicken-dilemma
defection.

That was all I returned for, and I didn't intend to stay and argue with
people.

These interminable arguments with Juho & Markus aren't serving any useful
purpose and don't seem to have a point.

So, as of now, having said what I wanted to say about
P(MAM,  Smith,MMPO) & P(MAM,  Smith//MMPO), and asked what I wanted to
about them, and allowing time for an answer to my question, I've already
completed the purpose of my temporary return to EM.

...and so, as of right now, I'm concluding this temporary postponement of
my retirement from voting-systems.

If I don't reply to a mesage, it's because I won't be getting mailing-list
messages.

I don't mean any criticism of EM. I think that it serves its purpose well,
as an international forum for discussion of voting-systems. It's just that
I've said what I meant to about voting-systems, and so my participation
here would no longer serve a purpose.

...and least of all to continue repetitious arguments. The arguers can have
the last word.

Heuristic (noun):

A method, procedure or argument that serves as an aid to learning,
discovery or problem-solving, or relates to exploratory problem-solving
techniques that utilize self-eductating techniques (as the evaluation of
feedback) to improve performance.

----------

Ok :^)


Michael Ossipoff






>
>
> Markus Schulze
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161222/6db50d65/attachment.htm>