I said I wasn't going to reply to anything from Craig that's more than 2K, and I intend to keep to that policy. But, since it's been a while, I think I'll briefly reply to a few statements here: Craig said: > > Quoting from a Demorep message: > > > > >Mr. Ossipoff wrote in part- > > > > > > The problem is when all that a certain majority agrees on is > > > that there's someone whom they don't want to elect > > > > How does Mike know, when he wasn't e-mailed all the details?. It Craig, I don't claim to know what everyone else wants, if that's what you're asking. The point is that a majority can gain any outcome they want, and it's regrettable that, when that want is the nonelection of someone, they must use drastically insincere strategy, with some or most methods. But cheer up, Craig, there are a few methods that don't have that problem. > >What? I see a statement by Mike Ossipoff, apparently in original context Well, Craig left out some of the context--the part about how a majority can get any outcome it wants, at least unless the method is Borda, and I'm concerned about what that majority has to do in order to gain that outcome, when it's the nonelection of some candidate. >and well like a statement you would expect Mike to make without external >reference. If the statement that Craig quoted lacks external reference, might that not be because Craig quoted it without its full context? Was Craig suggesting that there was some external thing that I should have referred to, but didn't? External to what? >Mike believes in something called the "lesser evil." Then I see Well it isn't so much that _I_ believe in it. It's just that everyone voting in this country seems to believe in it. Myself I don't believe that Gore's evil is any lesser than Bush's. My concern is that everyone's voting seems to be dominated by a need to defeat some "greater evil", by electing a "lesser-evil", by abandoning their favorite. That's the problem that my & Steve's criteria are about. Insincere strategy needed in order to defeat a perceived "greater evil". Craig said: > > I wrote that society is not a part of voting theory. > > Why is Mike Ossipoff so very distant from rejecting the notion that > > humans can be referred to when taking about voting methods. It is > > a cover bullshitting. I want to suggest to YOU that a right view > > is Craig wants me to reject the notion that humans can be referred to when talking about voting methods. It isn't clear who Craig thinks is voting, or whose interests & concerns we should be interested in, if not those of humans. Not that I claim that Craig should be concerned about those things just because I am. But it would seem that Craig believes that I shouldn't care about those concerns because he doesn't. But I don't say that Craig's above-quoted attitude is original with him. Maybe Craig has just explained why the academics generally don't seem interested in the standards that concern actual voters. But though I may not agree with the priorities or goals of most academics, I wouldn't insult them by counting Craig among them. I merely mean that he may have copied their style and jargon, and verbalized their values more frankly than they usually do, in the above quoted statement by Craig. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.