<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<pre>I'd said:<br><br>><i> Because of the great desirability of avoiding the ABE problem, it's<br></i>><i> worth considering or looking at<br></i>><i> all sorts of possible solutions.<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> MMPO and MDDTR are known to work fine, though they have vulnerability to<br></i>><i> non-valid criticisms.<br></i><br>Kristofer replies:<br><br>If you're referring to Kevin's example, I don't think you can call the <br>MMPO criticism inherently "non-valid". To quote yourself, in an earlier <br>post:<br><br>><i> You (Kristofer Munsterhjelm -ed) wrote:<br></i>><i><br></i>>><i> You could of <a href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-December/029517.html#" style="text-decoration: underline;" id="_GPLITA_2" title="Powered by Text-Enhance">course</a> argue that "if I gave it to B, A would have been<br></i>>><i> just as unhappy, and if I gave it to A, B would have been just as<br></i>>><i> unhappy, so I dare you to show me the particular group that has been<br></i>>><i> wronged by this". I still think that you can say that you wronged the<br></i>>><i> two groups as a whole<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> [endquote]<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> Ok, sure. You may have wronged them collectively, by electing someone over whom<br></i>><i> no one in either group prefers anyone other than their favorite.<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> The <a href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-December/029517.html#" style="text-decoration: underline;" id="_GPLITA_1" title="Powered by Text-Enhance">question</a> is, how badly does that wrong them?<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> Badly enough to give up FBC, SFC, LNHa, CD, and Mono-Add-Plump?<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> The ABE problem might be a peculiarly American problem. I don't expect others<br></i>><i> to recognize it as a problem. We have the Republocrats, and, additionally, lots of<br></i>><i> small factions who are terribly mutually antagonistic, jealous, and rivalry-inclined; but<br></i>><i> which, together, might add up to a majority.<br></i><br>This, I took to mean that with MMPO, you pay some to get some <br>compliances you want. You "pay" by having the method exhibit the strange <br>results in Kevin's example, and you get FBC, SFC, LNHarm, etc., in return.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Fair enough. Strange, but not seriously wrong.<br><br>Kristofer continued:<br><br>Furthermore, your "might be a peculiarly American problem"... <br><br>[endquote]<br><br>I can't justify the statement that I made in that quote. In fact, it's ridiculous<br>to say that the co-operation/defection problem might be peculiar to one particular country.<br>So I withdraw that ridiculous statement.<br><br>Kristofer continued (in the same sentence):<br><br>...then suggests <br>that there's nothing inherently non-valid about the criticism.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>No, the criticism's nonvalidity doesn't depend on the ridiculous suggestion that the<br>co-operation/defection problem might be peculiar to one particular country.<br><br>The criticism is nonvalid because it can't be any more valid than the claim that someone<br>is seriously wronged by the election of someone over whom no one prefers anyone other than<br>their favorite.<br><br>Kristofer continues:<br><br>You say <br>that it is non-valid from your own point of <a href="http://www.textsrv.com/click?v=VVM6MTQwMTY6MTIxOnZpZXc6ZmIzNmIxM2E4NTZhY2M2YjczNGZjZWNhZjA1NDJjNGU6ei0xMDMyLTEwMzY4Omxpc3RzLmVsZWN0b3JhbWEuY29t" style="text-decoration: underline;" id="_GPLITA_0" title="Powered by Text-Enhance">view</a>, where you think the <br>tradeoff made by MMPO is worth it. <br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Kindly don't quote me saying something that I didn't say.<br><br>I told why the criticism is nonvalid. See my paragraph above.<br><br>Others (like me) may have different <br>opinions. <br><br>[endquote]<br><br>If you're saying you have an opinion that someone is seriously wronged by the election of<br>someone over whom no one prefers anyone other than their favorite, then can you tell us<br>in what way that seriously wrongs someone, or are you merely expressing a personal opion<br>(as, of course, is your right)?<br><br>Kristofer continued:<br><br>Saying that you're willing to make the tradeoff is quite a <br>different thing than saying that the criticism (e.g. MMPO's Plurality <br>failure) is inherently invalid.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Quite so. I'm saying both things.<br><br>The criticism is nonvalid, for the simple reason that I stated.<br><br>I'd conceded that, if you want to combine the A and B plumpers as plaintiffs<br>in a class-action lawsuit, then it could be argued that, when considered together,<br>they're _slightly_ wronged.<br><br>But the dependence on that prestidigitation doesn't inspire any confidence in the<br>"wrongedness. ...when you can't show that the A voters themselves, as a group, or<br>the B voters themselves, as another group, are wronged by the election of someone<br>to whom they don't prefer anyone other than their favorite.<br><br>All voting system standards and criteria come down to a matter of opinion about <br>what is important and what isn't. And what is more important than something else.<br><br>I suggest that it's important to get rid of the worse strategy problems. <br><br>Maybe you don't agree with me about that. Fine. There's no reason why we should<br>all agree in our purposes and goals. You aren't wrong.<br><br>What (I suggest) is "nonvalid" is your claim that the A plumpers or the B plumpers are wronged<br>badly enough to give up important method-properties. --But, as I said, that's a <br>subjective judgement, and maybe you have very different notions about what is important.<br>You aren't wrong. By your own, different, personal purposes, your criticism could be<br>valid.<br><br>Wronged a little? Maybe. Wronged seriously enough to give up anything desirable? No.<br>Not valid, I say. <br><br>(But, again, I disclaim that it's for you, and you only, to say what is important<br>or desirable to you)<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br><br></pre> </div></body>
</html>