05/20/02 - What `is' is (a la Clinton): Greetings list members,
Richard Moore wrote: "Condorcet winner" is unambiguous. Poor Richard cannot say this is true until he first gives us a `rigorous definition' of what `is' is (a la Clinton). He should also give us a rigorous definition of the word `squabble' for Squabble is Poor Richard's middle name. -------------- Original Letter -------------- From: richard [squabble] moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:28:20 -0700 Subject: Re: [EM] 05/15/02 - Josh calls for more math: Donald wrote: > The lower choices are garbage for the following reasons: > > * Most of the lower choices are not informed choices. > * Lower choices are used to harm earlier choices by helping some other > candidate. > * The lower choices are not neutral. Most of them are for the lower > candidates. > * Most choices are not made for the candidate, but instead the choices are > made for the party of the candidate. Change the candidate of the party to > some unknown and the voter will vote for him anyway. > It would be hard to assess the truth values of the above without having rigorous definitions of the following code words and phrases: [SQUABBLE] lower choices informed choices harm earlier choices helping neutral lower candidates party of the candidate candidate of the party The last two in particular seem to relate to the external political environment rather than the election method itself, so it might not be wise to make any generalizations with these. Sloppy terminology could give rise to many meaningless assertions. At least "Condorcet winner" is unambiguous. Donald's message is a good illustration of the need for mathematical rigor in EM discussions. -- Richard ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
