On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:51:12 -0500 Paul Kislanko wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote
I think we should charge Paul with throwing mud.
Juho has created a couple examples packaged as basic tie
elections, with
one extra vote added in that gives the odd voter full control
as to winner
under wv rules.
Paul notes - as a big deal - that by not starting with a tie,
the results
would be different.
Paul noted nothing of the sort. So Dave Ketchum is "throwing mud".
Paul noted that there is a qualitative difference between 3-alternative and
2-alternative elections. If Dave wants to dispute that, he is free to
disprove Arrow's Theorem and after he gets a Nobel Prize for that he can
accuse Paul of throwing mud.
What is the difference?
Juho was setting up ties. He did it with two alternatives:
1000 A>B
1000 C>D
How would adding in the following make a difference?
1000 E>F
Remember that the topic is ties, rather than splitting up a district with
a fixed quantity of real voters. The district could have had 3000 real
voters in 2 groups of 1500 or 3 groups of 1000 - or whatever made the
desired example.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
