[EM] The election methods trade-off paradox/impossibility theorems paradox.

[robert bristow-johnson]

my sincere and profuse apologies, Richard.
i read your posts wrong and perhaps conflated someone else's words with yours.
I am sorry, Richard.  i hope my retraction here suffices to correct the record.
bestest regards,
robert




---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] The election methods trade-off paradox/impossibility theorems paradox.

From: "Richard Lung" <voting at ukscientists.com>

Date: Wed, July 5, 2017 2:14 pm

To: rbj at audioimagination.com

Cc: "EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



>

> Some little misunderstanding here. I have never, in over 40 years

> supported IRV, much less cheered for it, as could even be grasped from

> the message you quote. And so have never taken any particular interest

> in its adoption or discarding. Ranked choice or preference voting is a

> necessary but not sufficient condition for a scientific and democratic

> election system.

>

> Richard |Lung.

>

>

> On 05/07/2017 09:06, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

>> Subject: Re: [EM] The election methods trade-off paradox/impossibility

>> theorems paradox.

>>

From: "Richard Lung" <voting at ukscientists.com>

>> Date: Wed, July 5, 2017 3:46 am

>> To: "Kristofer Munsterhjelm" <km_elmet at t-online.de>

>> Cc: "EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>

>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>

>> >

>> > No doubt you are safe in not thinking that is quite right.

>> > An electoral system that does not get beyond majority counting, even if

>> > it employs ranked choice, (as characterised of Arrow theorem in

>> > Democracy and New Technology, by Iain McClean) is never going to achieve

>> > anything like satisfactory representation. It is a hang-over of

>> > monarchism, the notion that democracy is about winners and losers.

>> > Democracy and science are about consensus.

>>

>> democracy is about social choices somehow made or shared with the

>> people who are enfranchised stakeholders (like citizens or eligible

>> permanent residents). so somehow we get all 120 million Americans in

>> some virtual room and decide, with some algorithm that is a function

>> of each voter's choice, a winner is chosen in such a way that best

>> expresses the will of these voters.

>>

>> Richard, we know you are a cheerleader for IRV and that's fine. Have

>> you heard about jurisdictions that adopted IRV, used it, and later

>> repealed IRV?

>>

>>

>> --

>>

>> r b-j rbj at audioimagination.com

>>

>> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

>>

>>

>>

>> ----

>> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttp://electorama.com/em for list info

>

>

> --

> Richard Lung.

> http://www.voting.ukscientists.com

> Democracy Science series 3 free e-books in pdf:

> https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085

> E-books in epub format:

> https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience

>

>





--
 


r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
 


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170705/0a385bd2/attachment.htm>