Lomax quotes Warren:
At 12:41 PM 2/10/2007, Warren Smith wrote: > >WDS: In IEVS, presently, equal
rankings are forbidden in rank-order methods. > >MO: which (like Warren's
other assumptions) makes the results meaningless. > >--WDS: While I agree it
would be nice if IEVS did equal rankings, >and I plan to make >a future
version do that, >(a) I do not agree I ever made any "assumption" here. >I
simply described the status of IEVS. I did not "make an assumption." >(b) I
do not agree every result in the universe that concerns rank >order voting
methods >is "meaningless."
Lomax continues:
I have a policy of not replying directly to Ossipoff, there is a history of
endless debate that turns over details of "you said," and "I said,"
I reply:
and a history of run-on sentences?
Well, when you post something that youre claiming that I said, then yes,
that does raise the question of whether or not I really said it.
Lomax continues:
endless argument that goes nowhere.
I reply:
If Lomax has an argument that goes somewhere, then I invite him to go
somewhere with it.
Lomax continues:
Here Warren noted in his post that IEVS did not presently allow equal
rankings. He was listing this as a shortcoming of IEVS. Ossipoff apparently
turned this into an assumption that there was something defective about
equal rankings.
I reply:
I did? What I said was that that, whether you call that an assumption or a
premise of the simulation, it renders the simulations results irrelevant
with regard to the Condorcet methods that we propose. If Lomax wants to
claim that I said that Warren assumed that there was something defective
about equal rankings, then I invite Lomax to post the date and time of the
posting in which I said that.
If Mr. Lomax doesnt want discussion about what someone said, then he might
try not misquoting people so sloppily.
Warren is correct. He simply described the status of IEVS, which has not yet
been programmed to allow equal rankings in ranked methods. The charge that
his results are therefore "meaningless" is, well, silly. Many
implementations of ranked methods don't allow equal ranking, in the real
world.
Perhaps Mr. Lomax is referring to IRV implementations? Suggesting that that,
or some other non-Condorcet method, has some relevance to a simulation
involving Condorcet is, well, silly.
No Condorcet version proposed by any participant on EM disallows equal
rankings. Of course maybe Warren ran his simulation to test Tidemans
no-equal-ranking Condorcet method <smiley>.
Lomax continues;
Yes, as Ossipoff points out, most of us would prefer equal ranking (which
actually turns ranked methods into something closer to Range, or at least to
Approval). But programming equal ranking is trickier, if you are using issue
space analysis to determine votes. At what level of preference do you decide
to rank equally? Or what other factors influence the use of equal ranking?
It is actually a *lot* more complex.
I reply:
Oh, then lets disregard equal rankings, even though no EM participant
proposes a Condorcet method that disallows equal rankings. If its too
complex, then maybe Warren is getting in over his head?
Lomax continues:
And, yes, it is necessary for Warren's results to have wider application.
But they are not at all "meaningless" as they stand. ----
I reply:
Search out their meaning, Mr. Lomax!
This posting that Im now replying to is a good example of the kind that
really wastes our time. It consists of a blatant misquote, and other claims
that are flimsy enough that discussion of them wastes our time.
Mike Ossipoff
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
