<html><head></head><body>MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:F4I9mK6PYzDabigPasS0000aec1@hotmail.com">I reply:
<br>
<br>
You just can't let go of Richard & his diagram, can you. Richard told
<br>
me that it had nothing to do with how the diagram looked, and so
<br>
I acknowledged that it was more about Margins resulting in a diagram
<br>
that Richard liked better. Richard said the diagram was just an
<br>
illusstration. What had he thought that I thought the diagram was?
<br>
Ok, the diagram was an illustration of something that Richard likes
<br>
about Margins.</blockquote>
Something I like about margins, and that is also relevant to the concerns<br>
of a voting public. Mike had stated he prefers a method that overrules<br>
fewer voters. My illustration relates overruling to a distance on the<br>
diagram. The distance Mike chooses to measure is much farther than the<br>
true distance involved in dropping a defeat. To drop a defeat, you only<br>
need to move it as far as the tie line. Mike would move it all the way to the<br>
no-winning-votes line, which gives a distorted measure of the amount<br>
of overruling that takes place.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:F4I9mK6PYzDabigPasS0000aec1@hotmail.com">Now Anthony says "It had nothing to do with what voters want."
<br>
Yes, Anthony, that was my point. You've gotten it right again. Very
<br>
good.
</blockquote>
Mike has taken Anthony out of context here. Anthony was referring to<br>
Mike's statement about margins looking "nice on a certain diagram"<br>
when he made that statement. Mike's original approach to criticising<br>
my illustration was to trivialize it. So Mike's original criticism was<br>
not really about voter concerns, was it?<br>
<br>
Personally I think this matter has been beaten to death already, which<br>
is why I haven't posted on it in the last few days. Clearly there are<br>
differences of opinion. Mike is more concerned about protecting<br>
the sincere CW than about voter overruling. For me the priorities are<br>
reversed. Based on my different priorities I rate margins somewhat<br>
higher than winning votes. In spite of what Mike said in an earlier<br>
post, I never contradicted him on the possibility of strategic collapse<br>
in margins. I do think collapse and reversal are high-risk strategies<br>
(done to increase chances of best-case utility while at the same time<br>
making the worst case more likely, without necessarily achieving an<br>
overall increase in utility expectation), so they probably won't be<br>
as prevalent as Mike thinks. Besides, I don't elevate these problems<br>
to the same level of importance Mike does.<br>
<br>
Approval or any form of Condorcet will be so much better than the<br>
silly IRV or Borda alternatives to single-mark Plurality, and the<br>
differences between various forms of Condorcet are small compared<br>
to the differences between Approval or Condorcet and the silly<br>
methods. Those who agree on this point should at least unite behind<br>
any wasted "reform" effort such as IRV.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:F4I9mK6PYzDabigPasS0000aec1@hotmail.com"></blockquote>
</body></html>