On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:14:23 -0500
From: robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]>
To: EM Methods <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EM] IRV vs Plurality (Dave Ketchum)
Don't know what you're talking about.
consider Burlington 2009 with the inconsequential candidates Simpson
and "write-in" eliminated and very real (but otherwise last)
candidate Dan Smith eliminated. that least Wright, Montroll, and
Kiss. with only those three left, these are the pile counts of the
only salient permutations of marked ballots:
1332 M>K>W
767 M>W>K
455 M
2043 K>M>W
371 K>W>M
568 K
1513 W>M>K
495 W>K>M
1289 W
now, Kathy, ask yourself why there are no piles marked just M>K or
M>W or K>M or K>W or W>M or W>K? (those are the 6 piles you want to
enumerate in your 15.)
Robert, Your slip is showing again.
no slip nor nuttin' else under me kilt. want me to show you?
Exactly as I tried to point out to you, you were either disallowing
voters to rank only two candidates or to rank all three.
no, it has nothing at all to do with allowing or disallowing the
voters to
I see I was
correct and you are disallowing voters to rank only two candidates and
have, as Abd ul also pointed out to you, left 3 choose 2 or 6 possible
choices out of your list.
because all unmarked candidates are tied for last place, when there
is only one unmarked candidate, there is *no* consequential
difference between leaving that candidate unmarked or marking that
candidate last.
Unfortunately for your system of disallowing voters to rank only two
choices, US courts would rule that any such ballots where voters rank
only two choices as legal votes that must be counted, so you cannot
have a voting system in the US which disallows those choices.
All your formulas are incorrect.
and, since you don't understand your opponent's argument, then your
evaluation of it is authoritative.
Robert I just proved you wrong, as did Abd ul earlier. So please try
again if you think your other formula is correct, because
mathematically provably both your formulas are obviously incorrect to
any election methods expert on this list or any mathematician or
probabilist, not just to me.
Reality is a really nice place Robert. I invite you sincerely to join
us in the real world.
Kathy, come to the USENET newsgroup comp.dsp someday. i'm quite used
to analyzing and sometimes deconstructing arguments.
you haven't made a dent.
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
