On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 15:17 -0500, Paul Kislanko wrote: > Apologies to Rob.
No worries. > From the reading of what he wrote, it appeared he was > attacking folks who supported Condorcet methods. Rob says I misunderstood > what he wrote, so I apologize. But I STRONGLY urge advocates to write more > clearly, because no matter how I parse what Rob said, it comes out as an > attack against Condorcet and Condorcet advocates. It's a critique of some Condorcet advocates, not an attack. An attack would be "Condorcet advocates are morons." > FWIW I am not an advocate of any method, just interested in understanding > all of them. It's really hard, because people use undefined acronymns and > write vauguely. Can I count on you not to assume the worst next time, and simply ask for clarification? I try to write clearly, and know how to do it, but writing crystal-clear prose is a lot of work that no one is paying me for. I'll be as clear as I can without spending an inordinate amount of time, and hope that people ask if they are confused. Sound fair? Rob > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ] On Behalf Of Rob Lanphier > > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:59 PM > > To: Paul Kislanko > > Cc: election-methods-electorama.com@electorama.com; 'Warren Smith' > > Subject: RE: [EM] Center for Range Voting Formed > > > > On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 12:42 -0500, Paul Kislanko wrote: > > > Rob, please lose the invective and the misleading statements: > > > > invective? > > > > > "Your tactic a very similar tactic to one used by many Condorcet > > > advocates which I also object to. Condorcet fails the "Independence > > > from Irrelevant Alternatives" criterion (IIAC), made famous > > by Kenneth > > > Arrow in his Nobel prize winning theorem. Many Condorcet > > advocates have > > > tried to dance around this issue by redefining IIAC to be > > "Local IIAC", > > > and pointing out that some Condorcet methods pass "Local > > IIAC", /before/ > > > confessing that they fail IIAC as defined by Arrow." > > > > > > Well, Arrow's Nobel Prize-winning theorem was that EVERY > > method MUST fail > > > one of his four criteria. So Condorcet fails IIAC? > > Everybody knows it must > > > fail one or another. > > > > No, they don't. Everyone who knows Arrow's theorem does. > > Not everyone > > knows Arrow's theorem, though. > > > > > If the argument is that IIAC is more important than the > > other 3 criteria, > > > please list the criteria that your favorite method > > (whatever it is) fails to > > > satisfy, in the interest of your post's concern about other > > folks' failures > > > to disclose everything. > > > > Ummm....I'm a longtime Condorcet advocate. Google > > "Condorcet's method" > > and see what shows up at the top of the search results. > > > > Rob > > > > > > ---- > > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > > for list info > > > > > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info