On 05/13/2012 03:04 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You're in deinal about Gibbard-Satterthwaite. You're in denial about Condorcet's blatant and full-magnitude co-operation/defection problem. And you're in denial about millions of voters' need to litterally maximally help the Democrat beat the Republican.
There are many ways to try to convince the people with whom you're debating that they're mistaken. Calling them "in denial" is not one of them.
Now, I could lower myself to your level, but I'm not going to do that. I *am* going to say, though, that this is not the kind of thing that makes me want to invest time in writing replies to your posts. Please don't do it.
Before you start claiming people are in denial, look at what you've written yourself. More specifically, it looks rather bad when you, on the one hand, say that C/D resistance is not incompatible with the Condorcet criterion, then turn around and claim that "Condorcet has a blatant and full-magnitude co-operation/defection problem" of which Condorcetists are supposedly in denial.
Before you talk about a *need* to literally maximally help the Democrat beat the Republican, consider what you have said yourself, in response to my posts. You have said that the voters' overcompromise is a result of their history with Plurality, not an objective *need* to, within Condorcet, rearrange the preferences or the worse guy will win.
And finally, I'd give this hint: the moment it feels like the "other side" has somehow acquired a preponderance of people in denial, take a more Copernican view. When an otherwise sensible group holds a view that seems to be silly, and to explain the silliness, a greater part of that group needs to be extraordinarily blind (and very specifically so), perhaps they are not. Perhaps, instead, the view is not so silly.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
