<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
There is one area in which I will acknowledge that Mike is Indeed an "expert" that of the partial presentation of facts combined with the use of certain rhetorical techniques to create a misleading impression that he is right.<BR>
<BR>
Right let's see what he's come up with today.<BR>
<BR>
I wrote:<BR>
<BR>
For example in the recent election for Governor of California<BR>
there was probably a great deal of disutility of knowledge.<BR>
<BR>
Mike replied:<BR>
<BR>
What's that??<BR>
<BR>
You mean you don't know, people might stop telling you you're an expert.<BR>
( look I am learning, I'm using one of your put-down techniques)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I explained:<BR>
<BR>
Due to the number of<BR>
candidates most voters would probably been unable to tell you the names of <BR>
more<BR>
than a handful of candidates let alone what they all stood for.<BR>
<BR>
Mike replied:<BR>
<BR>
That isn't the same as saying that the only candidate near the voter median <BR>
will be an unknown.<BR>
Known candidates will compte there too, and some of those will be sincere in <BR>
their advocacy of voter median positions.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
No Mike you misunderstood me, I said that unknown candidates can quite possibly end up near the voter median by virtue of being unknown. I do not like you, I do not hate, I do not know you therefore I rank you somewhere near the middle you are preferable to those I dislike but worse than those I agree with.<BR>
<BR>
I wrote :<BR>
<BR>
A common way for somebody to<BR>
promote a 'pet' electoral method is to do the following:<BR>
<BR>
1/ Find a set of criteria that your system meets and state them.<BR>
<BR>
2/ Dismiss the criteria your method doesn't meet as irrelevant or even<BR>
better<BR>
just don't mention them<BR>
<BR>
Mike replied:<BR>
<BR>
During the time that EM has been in existence, we've had to answer this<BR>
<B><U>abyssmal ignorance </B></U>many times. There should be a FAQ with answers to all the<BR>
stupid questions like that. Or else David should check the archives better<BR>
before presuming to tell us how it is.<BR>
<BR>
David apparently is using his <B><U>ESP</B></U> here. Because, without <B><U>ESP</B></U>, how does<BR>
David know that someone started by choosing a method, and then searched<BR>
around for criteria that the method would meet.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
(Note Mike's skilfully placed insults.)<BR>
<BR>
I replied:<BR>
<BR>
A way people often come to advocate or like a thing is like this. They look<BR>
at something superficially think "this is a good idea" and agree with it.<BR>
<BR>
They<BR>
then examine their decision in more detail and look for strong reasons to<BR>
justify their choice.<BR>
<BR>
.<BR>
Mike replied:<BR>
<BR>
ESP again? Or did someone tell you that that's what they do? If so, then who <BR>
told you that they do that?<BR>
<BR>
I continued:<BR>
<BR>
Sometimes people change their minds. Many people on the EM<BR>
list originally thought IRV was a good idea but on later consideration <BR>
switched<BR>
to either supporting Approval or Condorcet. The initial opinion often comes<BR>
before the detailed knowledge and may change as a result of gaining that<BR>
knowledge.<BR>
<BR>
Mike replied:<BR>
<BR>
Another amazing discovery by David. But it isn't quite clear how you can <BR>
tell when someone is misrepresenting their reason for liking a method. Are <BR>
you the arbiter of that<BR>
<BR>
I reply finally:<BR>
<BR>
No not another amazing discovery merely me stating the obvious. I like stating the obvious as a technique it makes it clear exactly what you mean. After all if nobody understands what you're saying it pointless saying it. And many people don't have the time to wade through the archives looking for a certain previous post.<BR>
<BR>
What came first Mike your understanding ( and liking) of Condorcet type methods or some of the criteria on your website. I do recall that in a previous post you told me that you had written some of them. I would guess it was a synergetic process your liking for Condorcet type methods led to your development of some of your "objective" criteria and the "objective" criteria you discovered/wrote reinforced your liking of Condorcet type systems.<BR>
<BR>
I am claim to be an arbiter of nothing, I merely have an opinion and state it.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I wrote:<BR>
<BR>
Two Condorcet criteria, which surprise, surprise only Condorcet meets.<BR>
<BR>
Mike replied:<BR>
<BR>
So now are you also saying that Condorcet first decided that he liked his<BR>
method, and then contrived a criterion that it would meet? I suggest that<BR>
all that deviousness is in your mind.<BR>
<BR>
Mike that would be ridiculous, Condorcet invented his method 200 years ago and it was given his name after its invention , as regards any deviousness on my part well, I am being taught by an expert. <BR>
<BR>
Right now onto the criteria you discovered( or contrived or made up, hey I'm improving at this insult thing) :<BR>
<BR>
Five strategy criteria (SFC, GSFC, SDSC, WDSC,FBC).<BR>
<BR>
Mike writes:<BR>
<BR>
Apparently David believes that each criterion is for a different offensive<BR>
strategy :-)<BR>
<BR>
David, it's a good thing for strategists that only one offensive strategy is<BR>
necessary, because only one is available in wv Condorcet.<BR>
<BR>
I reply:<BR>
<BR>
If each criteria is not for a different strategy surely some of your criteria must be repetitions or least very similar. Why not have just one strategy criteria- something like "the method must be immune to strategic manipulation" (more cleverly worded of course).<BR>
<BR>
You continued:<BR>
<BR>
I've said many time, but apparently must again repeat, that, though IRV<BR>
doesn't have offensive order-reversal, it requires, without any offensive<BR>
strategy being done, a much more drastic defensive strategy than Condorcet<BR>
wv does. IRV will make the need for defensive favorite-burial. That need<BR>
happens without anyone using offensive strategy. That's the mark of a really<BR>
poor method. IRV and Plurality have that in common.<BR>
<BR>
At worst, in a really devious electorate, where there are many who'd like to<BR>
do offensive order-reversal, Condorcet then begins to have a strategy<BR>
problem. But that strategy problem isn't like IRV's strategy problem. IRV<BR>
requires defensive favorite-burial. But offensive order-reversal can be<BR>
deterred by mere defensive truncation.<BR>
<BR>
I reply:<BR>
<BR>
How important strategy criteria are depends on whether the voters use strategy and to what extent they use strategy. I've spent years encouraging voters to use the very simple strategy of vote for the candidate of the party most likely to defeat the Conservative. With some people who aren't very politically minded and some who are it can, for a whole variety of reasons ( foremost amongst them a desire to vote sincerely) be an uphill struggle.<BR>
<BR>
I wrote:<BR>
<BR>
Finally we have the summability criterion which isn't a proper election<BR>
method evaluation criterion at all.<BR>
<BR>
Mike replied:<BR>
<BR>
I guess David isn't going to let us in on how he knows that.<BR>
( I think you're overdoing the sarcasm Mike)<BR>
<BR>
Mike partially quoted me as saying:<BR>
<BR>
In the context of British General elections in<BR>
which all the ballot boxes are transported to a single central location to<BR>
be<BR>
counted it looks pretty irrelevant.<BR>
<BR>
and then continued:<BR>
<BR>
David, it isn't entirely clear how the transportation of ballot boxes makes<BR>
the Summability Criterion irrrelevant. Did you think that the problem with<BR>
non-summable methods is the infeasibility of carrying the ballots to the<BR>
central counting location? :-)<BR>
<BR>
I reply:<BR>
<BR>
Mike you're slipping. Let's quote part of your criterion back to you in case you'vre forgotten it<BR>
<BR>
"Under IRV, therefore, every individual vote (rank list) must be available at a central location to determine the winner. In a major public election, that could be millions or even tens of millions of votes. The votes cannot be compressed by summing as in other election methods because votes may need to be transferred according to which candidates are eliminated in each round"<BR>
<BR>
I reply: <BR>
<BR>
That is in essence what I said and what you appear to be saying. The information must be transmitted to a central point. One means of doing this is physically transported the ballot boxes. Whatever the electoral administration arrangements their is scope for fraud. Current elections to the Australian Senate (under STV) involve millions of votes information about which is required to be transmitted to a central location. Are you saying these elections are fraudulently conducted? In France local counting has always been used but this did not prevent in a 1973 election in Bastia (Corsica) the 165 inhabitants of a small village apparently casting 6122 votes.<BR>
<BR>
I wrote:<BR>
<BR>
It is also worth noting that Australia<BR>
managed to conduct IRV elections in 1919 over some very large and sparsely<BR>
inhabited constituencies<BR>
<BR>
Mike replied:<BR>
<BR>
Yes, low voter population definitely helps IRV<BR>
<BR>
I reply:<BR>
<BR>
Mike, read the statement carefully, by large and sparsely populated I mean the constituency was geographically big, not that the number of voters was small. If it could be done with the technology available eighty years ago it can definitely be done today.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I wrote:<BR>
<BR>
it ( the summability criterion) is not a valid criteria to assess an election method against<BR>
<BR>
Mike went on (and on):<BR>
<BR>
Dave, "criteria" is a plural. The singular is "Criterion".<BR>
<BR>
You make a lot of statements that you don't suport because you can't<BR>
<BR>
I reply:<BR>
<BR>
People who live in glass houses should really not throw stones. One of your rhetorical techniques is to mock and highlight unintentional errors of grammar and spelling you should really read your posts before you send them. Mike, by the technique of partial presentation of information you are expert at creating a distorted and misleading impression of the truth.<BR>
<BR>
I wrote:<BR>
<BR>
Where is latter-no-harm?<BR>
<BR>
Mike replied:<BR>
<BR>
I refer you to my posting entitled "Woodall's Whacky, Zany Criteria".<BR>
<BR>
I reply:<BR>
<BR>
Mike this really will not do. Many people ( I gather though looking through copies of Voting Matters and from other sources ) not just Woodall consider this is to be a very important criterion.<BR>
<BR>
Mike went on:<BR>
<BR>
I make no secret of the fact that Condorcet (like IRV & all rank methods<BR>
except Borda) doesn't pass Participation. <BR>
<BR>
I reply: <BR>
<BR>
You do by ommision if you don't mention it.<BR>
<BR>
Mike went on:<BR>
<BR>
We're not obligated to list every criterion. Websites put up what the owner<BR>
considers important. It would be prohibitively cluttering and confusing to<BR>
readers if we listed every criterioni that we don't consider as important.<BR>
<BR>
I reply: <BR>
<BR>
Criterioni is that a pasta ? <BR>
<BR>
Mike, you website gives the impression that it is an objective evaluation of election methods. I have not objection to people advocating a certain system, that is their right but to pass it off as impartial, balanced and objective when it is not is something I find really annoying. Take Blake Cretney's Condorcet.org it says it straight away I am advocating a system based on the ideas of Condorcet. Take Marcus's paper I am advocating (and describing the properties both good and bad) of a system I devised called Schulze. <BR>
<BR>
Mike finished (finally) with:<BR>
<BR>
The person who can't make his case on the merits of facts about the topic,<BR>
will often do what David is doing: Speculate about the motives of others.<BR>
Theorize that they're misrespresenting their reasons for their advocacy. And<BR>
now, though David's point here isn't at all clear, he seems to be finding<BR>
fault with Russ's reference to me as an expert.<BR>
<BR>
I'll tell you one thing for sure, Dave: Someone like you isn't qualified to<BR>
discuss whether or not I'm an expert.<BR>
<BR>
If an expert is someone from whom you need to learn, then yes Dave, to you<BR>
I'm an expert.<BR>
<BR>
I reply:<BR>
<BR>
Quite honestly I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Mike's ego seems to know no bounds. How can somebody say something like that? One person, one vote, when it comes down to it in the end my opinion is as valid as any other.<BR>
<BR>
Mike's statement that<BR>
<BR>
"The person who can't make his case on the merits of facts about the topic,<BR>
will often do what David is doing: Speculate about the motives of others.<BR>
Theorize that they're misrespresenting their reasons for their advocacy." <BR>
<BR>
is indeed true. That is not what I am doing though, I am saying the facts are partial and incomplete, I am saying beware those who produce material that bends over backwards to create an impression of objectivity. This is another very good effective technique used by people who lack the confidence to make their case on the merits of the facts about the topic.<BR>
<BR>
So what has Mike taught us? How to use clever insults to create an effect, how by omission, the use of cleverly worded statements and spurious claims of objectivity to create a biased and partial impression. If I am crawling in the mud you taught me by example how to do it. Looking at your posts to me and other people I wonder does Mike teach us anything of value. What if every poster to The EM list used Mike's rhetorical techniques (which I am attempting to copy in this post). It would be more a matter of who can write the cleverest insult or put-down rather than a discussion of electoral methods.<BR>
<BR>
David Gamble<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>