>> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: mathemaatics isn't aesthetic >> Twit Anthony is saying that if I don't want millions of >> voters forced to dump their favorite because of the >> lesser-of-2-evils problem, then I have to agree with the >> majority on everything. Anthony, more than before, you're >> demonstrating yourself to be a complete jackass. First off, let's look at the strange phenomenon of name calling. If the purpose is to reflect poorly on someone, who does it reflect poorly on? Now, on to something worthwhile ... Perhaps to see the real purpose of Richard's use of a diagram, all you need is a little more explanation of the purpose of geometric diagrams. People use the diagrams primarily not because of the aesthetic consideration. If you remember high school algebra, then you recall that if you have two equations represented by lines, their common solution is the point where the lines cross. That can also be explained entirely in algebraic terms, but so much of human intuition is visual that diagrams are often understood more quickly and remembered longer. That was the reason why Richard's diagram was useful. LIkewise, Richard's use of mathematics in general is hardly unusual. Nor does that mean his considerations are not important to voters. Richard was talking about accurately measuring the will of the voters. Contrary to certain assertions, that is indeed of concern to voters. Actually, I should point out that aesthetics and utility are not entirely divorced. One point of connection is based in the fact that the people who are doing the math and using the diagrams are human, and aesthetics does contribute to understanding. So even if someone makes an aesthetic observation, it can't automatically be dismissed as impractical. Basically, that's my point. I can understand that if you want to disagree with me, you have to find something else to disagree with, since I'm clearly right. But if it's clearly correct, why argue? Now, on to less important things ... When you objected to Richard's use of the diagram, your objection had nothing to do with voters. It was just a mistaken belief on your part that he was concerned about the aesthetics. Richard's argument was concerned with what the voters want; your objection was not. And I pointed that out. But you have managed to quote me as saying that Richard was not concerned with what voters want. That was, of course, incorrect, but it was very clever. Of course, a trick, no matter how clever, is still just a trick. Still, it is more impressive than calling people twits and jackasses. But it would have been more impressive if you'd simply recognized that your objection to Richard's use of the diagram: >> Richard has written about how one thing he likes about >> margins is that it looks nice on a certain diagram. was mistaken and left it at that. I notice you have also managed to put more words in my mouth: "Twit Anthony is saying that if I don't want millions of voters forced to dump their favorite because of the lesser- of-2-evils problem, then I have to agree with the majority on everything." This is not nearly as clever a trick as your other one. It's merely a simple misrepresentation, and I'm sure everyone caught it immediately, so nothing more need be said about that. Then there is the business of your criterion of only considering what voters want. Now, you've said that I'm wrong about the voters wanting IRV because it has never been officially adopted. On the other hand, you insist that they do want to avoid the lesser-of-two-evils problem, so that is relevant. Need I point out that there is nothing official about that either? So, the one consideration is irrelevant because it is not official, but the other unofficial consideration is important. Perhaps next time a brief explanation of logic is in order. Well, that about covers it. I have tried not to get sucked into semantic by-ways constructed for argumentative purposes only, but have merely amplified on what I have actually said. Hope that helps. ----------Original message---------- >> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: mathemaatics isn't aesthetic I'd said: >>By George, I do believe he's got it. Yes, those criteria relate >>directly & obviously to the lesser-of-2-evils problem, the problem >>that dominates the voting of millions of voters, making them afraid >>to do other than vote a compromise over their favorite. Anthony said: Plenty of voters have had a chance to spell out what they want, and they have overwhelmingly chosen IRV. I reply: I have no idea what you're talking about. In the U.S., the voters haven't chosen IRV. In Australia they adopted IRV at a time when Condorcet was computationally infeasible and Approval was unknown. So what? Anthony continues: Therefore, by your criterion, that is what matters I reply: What's my criterion? The standard of getting rid of the lesser-of-2-evils problem because it's such a problem for so many voters? Anthony continues: , and if you really believed your own criterion, you would support IRV. I reply: Twit Anthony is saying that if I don't want millions of voters forced to dump their favorite because of the lesser-of-2-evils problem, then I have to agree with the majority on everything. Anthony, more than before, you're demonstrating yourself to be a complete jackass. If the people democratically chose a president whom I dislike, of course their choice is the rightful president, no matter whether I like him or not. Does that mean that I "support" him? No. I'd continue to express my reasons why he isn't a good president. Maybe I'd even talk of how the people made a mistake to elect him. But I'd never say that their choice wasn't valid, if it was made democratically, with complete information. I'd support the validity of their election result, but I wouldn't support the notion that that person is a good president. Anthony continues: But you have gone off on a side issue. What I was talking about was this: >> Richard has written about how one thing he likes about >> margins is that it looks nice on a certain diagram. It had nothing to do with what voters want, which is a distraction. It is simply incorrect. I reply: You just can't let go of Richard & his diagram, can you. Richard told me that it had nothing to do with how the diagram looked, and so I acknowledged that it was more about Margins resulting in a diagram that Richard liked better. Richard said the diagram was just an illusstration. What had he thought that I thought the diagram was? Ok, the diagram was an illustration of something that Richard likes about Margins. And, whatever it is, it surely is something very meaningful & relevant to Richard. But I merely pointed out that Richard's arguments and personal standards don't have any relation to the concerns of voters or how a new voting system could best get rid of the identified problems that our current voting system is causing for the country. Now Anthony says "It had nothing to do with what voters want." Yes, Anthony, that was my point. You've gotten it right again. Very good. Mike Ossipoff
