PEP 308 vote type (was Re: Update to PEP308: if-then-else expression)

[Laura Creighton]

In a message of Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:24:04 PST, Erik Max Francis writes:
>Laura Creighton wrote:
>
>> Max, I am sorry I characterised you as 'ternary at any price'.
>> I now know that the problem is that you don't understand Approval
>> Voting.  Sorry about that.
>
>Ah, ad hominem.  Congratulations, two logical fallacies in one argument.
>Kudos.
>
>-- 
> Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/


Aha, so you _do_ understand what will happen in Approval-Voting-A
(where you get to select no change) when 700 people vote for, (for
example), their own if they have it, Bengt Richer's proposal, and no
change, thus demonstrating that there exists no supporter of the
ternary operator who did not also think that Bengt's proposal was
acceptable to them? When I came along, sole supporter of no change,
and cast my single for no change -- no change will win?

And you _do_ understand that in Approval-Voting-B (where anybody
who selects any alternative does not get to vote no change) I could
bring a different electorate, each one this time having written
their own ternary syntax, and have each of them vote only their
own (they won't vote for any others, beause they totally hate
all the other ones that are not their own, and would rather have
no change than those others).  Then along comes Alex Martelli, and
he hasn't had time to write his own syntax.  So he votes for Bengt's.
Then along comes me.  I vote no change.  Bengt's now wins.

The logical fallacy of 'ad hominem' is when I say 'Don't vote for
ternaries because Max is an idiot'.  I didn't say you were an idiot, I
said that you didn't understand how Approval voting works.  And if you
are still for Approval-Voting-A, then I think that you still do not
understand it.

Laura