>> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [EM] Regarding the interesting website
I was doing something worthwhile (reading an article on the spread of sharia in Nigeria) when this arrived, and now I am going to return to it. >> I'd said: >> >>I checked out the website you referred to, but are you >> >>sure that , when electing an executive who has the power >> >>to veto the decisions of a legislature, it's more >> >>important to elect someone who has a large 1st-choice base >> >>than to elect someone who doesn't have majorities against >> >>him? >> Anthony Simmons replied: >> Are you sure I said any of that? I don't remember saying it. >> Perhaps you confused me with someone else. >> I reply: >> You didn't say any of that. The website owner did, and I accept that >> you are not he. Did I say that you said any of that? >> What I meant was, since this website makes the silly & misleading >> statements that it makes, and since it just recycles old garbage, >> then why would you want to recommend it? >> I realize that I didn't make that meaning clear in my previous >> letter. >> Anthony continues: >> I see you have some disputes about various claims made by the >> author of the site. So do I, though I am not inclined to >> make a pointless issue of them. >> I reply: >> No, you're just inclined to make a genuinely pointless issue about >> your belief that it's pointless for me to reply to statements on >> the comparative merits of voting systems. >> I make only the replies that >> I don't consider pointless, but I, not you, decide that. There are >> many statements on EM that I haven't replied to. But the silly >> misunderstandings in the website that you recommended seemed to >> call for a few comments, after you'd, for some reason, posted a >> link to the website, and recommended it. >> Is your proof of the pointlessness of issues about voting system >> merit similar to your proof of interestingness of websites? >> Maybe pointlessness is a subjective matter. Maybe it would be pointless to >> write to the website owner. That's confirmed by the fact that I'm >> not going to write to him. >> But you recommended a garbage website, and I mentioned some of the >> misunderstandings that it propagates. >> If some people look at the website that you recommended, they'll >> encounter some of the silly statements, and so I identified some of them. >> Comparison of the merits of voting systems doesn't seem to me to >> be a pointless issue. Let me carefully explain why that is: >> Voting systems play a crucial role in translating public preferences >> into public policy. Some of us, and I'm not saying that includes you, >> feel that our currently-used voting systems don't do a good job of >> that, or that they cause voters to seriously misrepresent their >> preferences. If that doesn't matter to you, then I won't pointlessly >> argue its importance. Similarly, some of us believe that some proposed >> reforms would remedy those faults better than others would. Improvements >> in voting systems, such as replacing them with methods that wouldn't >> cause voters to misrepresent their preferences so badly, could, some >> believe, result in improvements in society, when voters are more >> accurately expressing their preferences and the voting system is >> responding more accurately. >> If you check the EM charter, you'll notice that it has to do with >> discussion of the relative merits of voting systems. >> If that seems to you a pointless issue, well certainly each person >> has a right to their own notion of what's important. But a posting, >> to a voting system mailing list, claiming that the issue of the >> comparative merit of voting systems is a pointless issue, doesn't >> make a whole lot of sense. >> As I said, I answered a few statements in the website that you >> so pointedly recommended, because it's likely that some members of EM >> might have looked at the website and encountered those statements there. >> You recommended the website, and it's understandable if you're >> defensive about it. But when you post to EM a link to material, and >> recommend it, surely a reply to statements in that material isn't >> more pointless than your posting of the link and your recommendation >> of the material. >> In fact, now that you've brought up "pointless", one could question >> if there was any point in recommending that website. >> But wasn't the alleged pointlessness of my reply to the website-owner's >> statements a pointless issue for you to post about? >> And yes, of course it's pointless for me to spend this much time >> replying to your statements. But I sometimes reply to Demorep, and I >> so I was afraid that it would seem discriminatory if I didn't reply >> to you also. >> Mike Ossipoff