From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: Voting Analysis
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:18:41 GMT

In article 21588@nntpd.lkg.dec.com, edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.232231.25774@eagercon.com>, eager@eagercon.com
>(Michael J. Eager) writes:
>
>>>I have stated REPEATEDLY that I do NOT assert that a RELIABLE message is
>>>sent.  I assert that a message is sent, and I have offered reasons and
>>>evidence for that.  I admit it is unreliable, but it is nonetheless
>>>there, as is known to students of information theory and as is
>>>demonstrable to others.  By disproving that a "reliable" message is
>>>sent, you are disproving some statement other than what I assert, and
>>>thus you do not disprove what I did assert.
>>
>>Students of information theory know about messages.  There is no concept of 
>>"unreliable message", only messages which are either delivered or not.  
>>The noise of a channel determines whether a message is delivered at some
>>level of reliability.  It is the channel which has the reliability, not the
>>message.
>
>That is just wordplay; it does not affect the argument.  E.g., it does
>not matter to the subject (the person deciding whether to vote or not)
>whether an unreliable message is sent (but is in fact sent) or whether a
>message is sent unreliably (but does in fact have a positive probability
>of being received).  In either case, the expected value of the outcome
>is positive.  A positive expected value is sufficient to make the
>not-voting choice preferable to the voting choice, which had a zero
>value for the subject.


First, it the only wordplay going on is the stuff you are using about
reliable vs. unreliable messages.  Only my misunderstanding and misrepresenting
the little bit of knowledge you have in information theory can you come
up with a conclusion that a non-action conveys any kind of message.

Second, the "positive outcome" is your postulate.  This is not a conclusion
on your part.  You have not shown any medium for the message to be communicated,
any recipient, nor even described what the meaning of the message is (or perhaps 
it is that you have described so many different meanings for your message).  
Moreover, you have not described how anyone would distinguish no message from 
a message received.

Third, the "zero value" of voting was a conclusion which you arrived at by 
starting with that as it's premise.  It involved denying all of the assumptions
which you made when you came up with this conclusion that not voting somehow
sends some kind of message.

Any argument that you can make, weak as it may be, that not voting somehow
passes some vague, ill-defined message, to a party who may or may not 
know that there is a message and may or may understand it, can easily 
be used to convince even the thickest person that voting does carry a 
simple and clear message, which is generally quite reliably communicated.

In almost all cases, with great precision and accuracy, I can determine 
that a vote was cast and with great assurance, tell what the meaning of the
vote was.

---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141