We should hold a running contest to see who can identify the most logical fallacies in one of Donald's posts. I propose 1/2 credit for straw man, since this seems the most common and easily identifiable. Here are a few guides to the various fallacies, courtesy of Jeeves:
http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/ctac/fallacy.htm http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/fallazoo.htm Donald Davison wrote: > > 02/09/02 - Approval favors certain candidates: > > Dear Adam, > You wrote: "Perhaps it was best to let Mark's flippant response to your > flippant post stand alone..." > > Donald: I don't recall reading Mark's response to my post. I must not be > getting all my email, or most likely I deleted his post my mistake along > with some commercial posts. > > Anyway Adam, I was not being flippant. Approval has only limited honest uses. > > Adam: "I've seen your post (and copy) informative material when speaking on > the subject of multi-winner elections. But so far your posts on the > subject of single winner elections have essentially consisted of talking > down to those who support methods other than IRV." > > Donald: There is a difference. In multi-seat election methods the > corruption lies in which rules are used, in single-seat methods the > corruption lies in which method is used. The ABC methods are corrupt > methods. So, it follows that I would object to corrupt methods with the > same vigor that I object to corrupt rules in STV. > > Adam: "You say....approval is essentially good for nothing." > > Donald: That's about the size of it. Approval should not be used in any > serious election because it favors certain candidates (the lower ones). > > Adam: "If you please, give an example of an election where approval will > fail to produce a fair result." > > Donald: Let's use the last Florida Presidential election. The numbers were > about: 44 Bush, 44 Gore, 8 Nader, and 4 Others. Now, what do you > consider to be fair results? Do you want a method that somehow, by hook or > by crook, will raise Nader's vote total up to be in the same range as that > of Bush or Gore? If so, you have the same agenda as MikeO. The ABC > Methods serve that agenda and Approval Voting will be the best of the three > at serving that agenda. It is the most corrupt of the three, so it is > understandable that MikeO is promoting Approval Voting, he wants a method > that will do the most to elect a Nader type candidate even if 92 % of the > voters want someone else. > > If Approval Voting was the method of choice in the last Florida election, > Nader would have had a good chance of winning, provided at least fifty > percent of the Bush and Gore voters made the mistake of foolishly giving > Nader a vote too. > > In order for the election of Nader to become more of a certainty, the Nader > voters should only vote for Nader, no other candidate. Let the Bush and > Gore voters be foolish (the Bush and Gore Voters are not going to be that > foolish). > > Adam: "Or show some other strategic pitfall of approval voting." > > Donald: Approval Voting is a method that can be easily foiled, to the > extent that the method disappears. Take some example that is like your > example of three near equal candidates, say 1010 A, 1005 B, and 1000 C. > > In politics there is a rule that could be written; "If a ploy exists, > someone will find it and we can be sure it will be used to win an > election." > > Now, the question is: "When using the Approval Voting method, what ploy > could be used by one faction to win the above election?" Answer: Your > faction should only vote for one candidate. (your candidate of course) > > If the supporters of any one of these three candidates were to only vote > for their candidate, that candidate would have a very good chance of > winning. > > Of course, the supporters of the other two candidates may do the same, then > the method of Approval Voting disappears and we are left with merely > Plurality. This truth alone should make any sensible person reject > Approval Voting, but Approval is also deceptive. Approval itself is a ploy > to win the election for one of the lower candidates. > > The success of Approval Voting depends on deceiving most of the voters into > believing that it is safe to vote for more than one candidate. > > The supporters of Approval are not being honest with the people when they > implies to them, "Vote for Bush or Gore if you must, but also give one of > your votes to Nader." Or, "Of course, you want to vote for Bush or Gore, > but you have plenty of votes, give one to Nader." > > By replacing ranked preferences with actual votes, MikeO hopes that with > more votes in the hot hands of the voters that enough of these excess votes > will fall on his third party candidate so that Nader will win. He is > willing to have Nader win through the back door. It's a con game MikeO is > playing and you have yet to realize it. > > The Lower Choices are the back door. The lower choices are not netural, > they are the reverse of the first choices. If the first choices would have > been: 60 A, 30 B, and 10 C, the lower choices are 40 A, 70 B, and 90 C. > If all the lower choices are added to the first choices we end up with all > candidates being equal at 100 A, 100 B, and 100 C. While this most likely > will not happen in a real election, this does point up the policy of > Approval Voting to help the lower candidates to become equal in votes to > the higher candidates. The more lower choices a method uses, the more the > lower candidates are favored, the more corrupt that method is. Approval > Voting uses all the lower choices, so it is the most corrupt. > > Approval supporters want a method that uses more of the lower choices > because the lower choices contain a ratio of votes that favors the lowest > candidates. The ABC methods are for people who believe that one of the > lower vote gathers should win the election. > > This push for single-seat reform is not just for the Presidential election, > it is for all single-seat elections in the country, including all the > single-seat districts of the most important multi-seat elections, so there > is a lot at stake. Candidates that cannot get enough votes need some ploy > like Approval to give them a leg up. > > Donald