[EM] Asset-MMP

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 7/15/22 8:05 AM, Richard Lung wrote:

> I am not suggesting that is your solution,  but whatever 
> your assertion, it fails to meet vote-count consistency, which you 
> apparently do not understand, very clever man, tho you and your 
> colleagues undoubtedly are.

Alright, if that's how we're doing it...

I do not understand it because I do not understand your personal 
terminology, and you do not seem to be able to explain your terms in a 
way that is to the point and does not rely on other personal terminology.

For instance, I do not understand what a vote is, what a count is, and 
how they must be consistent with each other. (The best I can see is 
that, unlike other voting method criteria that assume nothing about the 
inner workings of a method, only about the results, the count is somehow 
related to the mechanical workings of the method. But beyond that, I'm 
lost.)

More than anything, it's like talking to a cybernetician who happens 
upon this list and then declares that every Condorcet method must be 
flawed because they don't respect the good regulator theorem. And then, 
when asked just how the good regulator theorem applies to voting 
methods, he just quotes Ashby and Conant or says something about 
"requisite electoral variety" instead of defining the application in 
unambiguous non-self-referential language.

Do not worry, though. I will bother you no further.

-km