At 31-03-2001 19:45 -0500 Saturday, Gregg Hill wrote: >In order that we get our terms standardized, consult the following webpage: > > http://www.idea.int/publications/ace/electoral_glossary.htm > >Gregg This list is one of the least academic around. If any find that I have written incautiously here then please elaborate on the error and leave no mistake remaining. I see Mr Lanphier is letting SPAM in. I am writing software to anonymise SPAM. I see that Mr Bob Goodlatte of Virginia (congressman) is trying to get a bill through to allow me to be fined US$10,000. A lot of SPAM does leak out to other countries. I am in New Zealand and we almost do not have SPAM. I am unconvinced that Rob Ritchie is actually interested in IRV. I wrote to his CVD agency recording my discovery that IRV fails to constrain the power of enemies to the power they would have if they used first past the preference papers and nothing came back from the CVD. There is an increasing mass of evidence that has gone far beyond what would persuade a reasonable person that the CVD of Mr Rob Ritchie has not got a functioning competent interest in the Instant Runoff Vote (if we assume for a while that that is the Alternative Vote" Method -- see this URL for a reference text of nomenclature of names of common methods): At 31-03-2001 19:45 -0500 Saturday, Gregg Hill wrote: >In order that we get our terms standardized, consult the following webpage: > > http://www.idea.int/publications/ace/electoral_glossary.htm > >Gregg The CVD of Mr Ritchie does not communicate over IRV. It is a cow pen and the members of the CVD do not have an interest in IRV. They must be of very low intellect in the sphere of the mathematics of IRV since they try to find out properties of IRV by studying the First Past the Post method. I could say this for the CVD in case they felt they wouldn't: if you are a mayor and you wrongly lost, it might be because a good method is similar but I (Rob Ritchie) very clearly and consciously decided to allowed a relaxed rule for both 'limiting the power of enemies [i.e. if they use extra preferences]' and 'prohibiting negative weights to be applied to supporting votes'. A major factor is that such a relaxation can allow a tilting of faces and a tilting of one or two intersecting 'win-lose boundary flat' will tend to reposition a third receding boundary flat. There tend to always be a third face since to not have one would mark the method as being sharply non-monotonic in that region. When the 3rd face is shifted across the point corresponding to the election results then the wrong winner won. The point I want to make is that wrong winners will be elected all over USA and Mr Rob Ritchie is strongly suspected to be the single only architect of that. Currently the CVD plan is to pipe down and lose or shred or whatever, the e-mail they get. The CVD is an evil agency and who subscribed here has any data indicating in a fairly clear way that the CVD is not at the beginning of a decline to greater deliberate misleadingness in the presentation of what IRV is?. Let's have a vote perhaps: when will the CVD produce a research paper that admits that IRV is a definition of polytopes and, say, that it is not always possible to alter {a:(A), b:(B), c:(C)} into {p1:(AB),p2:(BA), q1:(AC), q2:(CA), r1:(BC),r2:(CB)} [where a+b+c=p1+p2+q1+q2+r1+r2], and have the win lose statutes of {A,B,C} be held unchanged?. Also there is the non-monotonicity problem. The CVD does not promote IRV because it has divine itch. If there was a trace of a intelligence that the word "divine" could connote, then Rob Ritchie would not be promoting such an atrociously dumbly designed method. Yet feeble-brained journalists will write about the CVD as if it had a spiritual purpose it wanted good. As far as I know, Rob Ritchie doesn't like all his e-mail. It is like a pea (or a mayor or eventually a president or an MP) rolled down into a crevise in a soft chair and it had to be squashed. I must be mindful of my readers: let the mayors be squashed quietly. I am sure Mr Ritchie would not be insensitive to that. The exquisite range of emotions make man a king of the universe: and naturally some lives of god that are animals may have to be reduced in numbers. Which is better at visualising triangles, I won't comment on. I deleted out my text about bull rings and Senators. At 02-04-2001 09:20 -0400 Monday, I Like Irving wrote: > > > ----------- Forwarded Letter ------------ >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:20:24 -0500 >From: Rob Richie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: CVD Member Flash! CSPAN Sunday / Fox & CNN Monday >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Greetings! > >Thank you for supporting the Center for Voting and >Democracy. It's been a productive, eventful start The Centre of Voting and Democracy has achieved so much that it could be reduced 100-fold with a single grain of borax, were a speck of rain to fall. Let's have the readers ask themselves: would the CVD ever call an international competition to investigate the mathematics of IRV. It is a topic beyond the ability of the subscribers of this list, who don't seem to be making the minutest bit of progress whilst nevertheless writing a lot. >to 2001. Look for a full update in the next day or two >with news about new legislation on instant runoff voting >and proportional representation in more than a dozen >states, three federal bills on proportional representation, >new reports on our website, noteworthy upcoming events, >impressive new articles and more. > >For your more immediate attention, I wanted to let >you know that our president John Anderson will be The big Senators look better if they have bigger extra-big bull rings through their bright wet noses. The CVD could offer degrees in attaching shiny bull rings to blinded or stupid Congress-person's noses. >a guest on C-SPAN's Washington Journal program >Sunday morning, April 1st. The call-in program on third >party politics will air live from 8 am to 9 am EST, then >be repeated from 11 am EST to noon -- and don't forget >that our clocks move forward an hour tonight! > >In addition, I will be featured in a Fox News story on >redistricting that will air on "Special Report with Brit >Hume" in the 6 pm EST hour on Monday, April 2. I also >will be featured in a CNN News story on the state of the >electoral reform debate in "Inside Politics" between 5 pm >and 6:30 pm on Monday. Two weeks ago, I appeared on >NBC Evening News to discuss electoral reform. We're >certainly gathering more attention these days, and our >thanks to you for making it possible! > >Best regards, > >Rob Richie >Executive Director, Center for Voting and Democracy >fairvote.org Obviously it was not written for me, but fairvote.org is a place to learn nothing true and everlastingly true. I am very unaware that the CVD desires elections to be fair. People need to be jungle cutters to get through the self serving propaganda the CVD presumes interiorly regards as being evidence of its own thinking. Worse, it aspires to Leonine character and emanates self consciousness. That is not a great contribution to mayors. The "1-2-3" campaign is a campaign to promote ignorance. Anybody find out who it was especially directed to?. It is actually able to be a complex study: trying to infer an intelligent purpose from the details of the rather mediocre and mislead dull comments that Rob Ritchie and various other anonymous people, cast off out into the winds of the IQ-frozen US public. ---- Mr Ossipoff might have been recently writing on a topic saying 'adding a preceding preference for a complete loser will make a later candidate that would have won, turn into a loser'. It was undescriptively named. What Mike never says is just how extreme the alteration has to be to get that problem out. Indeed it is about always Mike's aim to never use a symbol or an algebraic polytope expression or anything whatsoever that exact, including an exact method of reasoning corresponding to: (a) actually writing good definitions that define something [what tends to happen is that the definitions are botched at multiple levels including incredibly at a superficial grammatical level]; and (b) actually referring to them [when Mike botches a definition it never seems to block out the view of argument or indeed even have a perceptible effect on the course of the proof which tends to be sketched out, all of which makes it difficult to get agreement that the definitions are missing or badly drafted], and (c) actually using inference and logical reasoning. There are a lot of little tricks, the dumbest and most stupid of which is saying 'if the aim is to get a good method for voters then a good method will follow'. It is a bad technique, Mike, to keep writing: "I was wrong". What was the formulae for the P function that I wrote to you about. By not writing formulae, many pages of English can provide nothing whereas with formulae the matter can be stated. Let's start up a new list. I could invite Mr Catchpole to administer the day to day details (if any) [but he can barely write, which certainly an unexpected development]. Mr Schulze has been practising truncating comments. I have a mailing list on STV: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/single-transferable-vote and another on bits and snippets on IRV (a recent US movement): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/instant-runoff-vote It is better that I run an IRV list than the CVD since it is fairly obvious to me that I know more about IRV than all CVD's members do. The CVD is not an agency that wants to know about IRV. So far we do not seem to be getting all the evidence we'd hope for that it is also not an agency that would ever want to mislead others into thinking IRV was good. It is too dissimilar to the ideal method to be a good method. I will let Rob Richie reply. Let each reader imagine Gauss is a spirit on their left and Euler is a spirit on their right. Ask the question: why aim to construct laws that prevent use of better methods. How many such methods are excluded?. Not even a dog wants its puppies to be identical to itself, (and it is suspected immediately that genius was not something that carefully thinking men of modern America would believe is an aspect of the CVD's nature).
