<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’m going to first quote the last sentence in Richard’s post:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“And remember that we are on the same side of the fence (trying to oppose <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>the existing plurality method).”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>[endquote]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Is that right. Richard could have fooled me :-)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But yes, I’d thought that was the idea. But then, if so, why doesn’t Richard have anything<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>better to do than attack another proposal, or try to publish an attack article<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>about Approval, and its problems?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Is Richard going to tell us here, at EM, what Approval’s problems are, before he<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>publishes his article about them? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>My Approval article was primarily about Approval. The benefits that it can bring, and <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>will bring if enacted.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Though I mentioned other methods, it was only to highlight certain Approval advantages.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In contrast, Richard wants to publish an article devoted entirely to attacking or attempting<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>To criticize, another method, regarded by him as a rival.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>That jealous, self-serving, infighting mentality is regrettable. I suggest that, instead, Richard publish an article about VoteFair, why he thinks it’s the best, why he thinks it’s the most winnable public proposal :-)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Do you think you could do that instead, Richard? Do you think that you could coexist in peace?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Don’t get me wrong—I have nothing against criticism. But would it be too much to ask, for Richard to share his criticisms with us here before he publishes them? And then we’ll find out if<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>he can answer comments and questions regarding his statements. Richard hasn’t been very good at that so far.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>You see, if there are going to be rebuttals and debate, it would be much better to get it out of the way here, than to impose it on Democracy Chronicles.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I suggest that our criticisms be confined to EM, and that our articles to Democracy Chronicles be, at least primarily, about a method that we propose.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’m not saying that Richard is the only one exhibiting the behavior to which I refer. That common, lowdown mudfighting behavior has been all too common at EM.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The sad thing about this is that, with the attitude I refer to, success for voting-system reform is impossible. Each person is saying “My proposal! My proposal!” And,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Like the 3 stooges fighting eachother while trying to get through a door in a hurry, they get nowhere, and never will get anywhere. Too busy pullng eachother back, to go through the door.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Too busy attacking eachother and the proposals other than their own.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The parallel with the story of King Solomon and the disputed baby is inescapable.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But what about me? Don’t I, too, say that my proposal is the best public proposal? Sure, but there’s a difference:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Though I claim that Approval is the best method in some ways, due to its unique optimizations, I admit that I want even more strategy protection. Did you hear that,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Condorcetists? Like you, I’d like to have more than what Approval offers. Though, in Approval, we can deal well with defection, I’d , ideally, rather have defection-resistance.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Note that word “ideally”. Some of our rank-method advocates have a difficult time distinguishing between “ideal” and “feasible”. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Anyway, my point is that, though I’d ideally like more, I propose Approval, because, for reasons that I’ve explained, it is the feasible proposal. And also, though it isn’t<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Defection-resistant, defection can be well dealt with in any of the 5 ways that I’ve described. I think that Condorcetists don’t appreciate the power of Approval.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But what I’m getting at is that I put feasibility above favoriteness-to-me. Do you think that you can do that, Richard?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We should be talking about feasibility, and about “How good would be good enough?” The attacks serve no purpose.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Now, though I don’t like lowering myself to Richard’s mudfighting, catfighting, infighting level, I’m going to answer a few things that he said:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Richard has complained that, in my counter-rebuttal, I repeated things from my article (and from my postings too, actually). Richard catches on fast.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I repeated those things because he evidently missed them the first time. When repeating them, I lamented that it was necessary to repeat them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Of course, not only does Richard appear to be completely innocent of the discussion up to his “rebuttal”, but he also has failed to answer nearly all<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Of the questions and comments in my counter-rebuttal. Should that be surprising? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And please note that I’m not asking Richard to reply to those things. Nor am I saying that he should. Do we understand that, Richard?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But I am pointing out to all of you that when someone won’t reply to questions such as the ones that I’ve asked Richard, it’s for a reason: He can’t.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“Stonewalling it” is the best strategy for someone in that situation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So I guess we’ll never know how Richard would publicly propose VoteFair (quasi-Kemeny), with its multi-page definition that practically no one will read. :-)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>...Or which of Approval’s optimization properties will cause voters to want to go back to Plurality.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>...Or what about Approval will make people want to go back to Plurality.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>…Or how and why Approval would be “controversial in hotly-contested elections”.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>…Or what Condorcet’s Criterion compliance would mean when voters are burying their favorites and employing offensive burial of rivals<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>…to name a few of the unanswered questions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This is long, and so I’m going to send it now, before actually wading into Richard’s text. I’ll do that in a subsequent reply.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Mike Ossipoff<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>