Re: Reply to Weinstein on Approval in Long Beach
Joe Weinstein <jweins123 <at> hotmail.com>
2002-08-02 02:08:48 GMT
Craig et al.,
I am not telepathic, and I can't read too many long posts (other than my
own!). I still don't get what worries Craig about Approval (as versus other
methods) nor what is the point of the display of the 64-candidate ballot -
for use with Approval or any other election method. No election method,
intended for universal application to 'all elections large and small', can
save a situation where 64 or more candidates are unleashed on a mass
electorate who on average know few (and have prior reason to know few) of
the candidates, or anyhow much about them.
Sorry, I don't groove on Hadamard matrices. I also don't know what anyone
means by 'Hadamard theory', let alone what questions this theory focuses on
and investigates. (Any relationship to Hadamard's approach to the Prime
Number Theorem??) As a mathematician I'm overspecialized, or anyhow
specialized in a different direction (or two).
Craig writes: 'Testing is not realistic if it is not done on paper or a
computer since too few points are involved. Surely at least 1,000 points are
needed. It could be tricky to blindly test the so called IRV method (with 3
candidates) and find a grave defect using <=1,000 sample points.
Why should the results from the test be "local" (of a region in USA) while
there was no theoretical testing?'
I agree that it sounds silly to claim a need to test locally what should
already be understood - or if not, then be tested - universally. However,
please bear two things in mind.
First, Craig and I are talking partly about testing different things: