Re: [pcp-discuss:] Probleming through Florida

From: Don Mikulecky (mikuleck@HSC.VCU.EDU)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 14:05:48 GMT

  • Next message: Don Mikulecky: "Re: [pcp-discuss:] Probleming through Florida"

    John,
    There are many important things that can not be modeled mathematically. This is
    especially true for the non-computable. We have relational math and category
    theory for that, but they will not provide the type of model you seem to be asking
    for.
    Don

    John J Kineman wrote:

    > I agree completely. My latest communication says essentially the same.
    > My concern is on how to mathematically model a large-scale survey of
    > public political preferences to maximize representativeness in the
    > outcome. The feasibility of implementing that under US law is secondary,
    > and interesting only in terms of context considerations.
    >
    > Francis Heylighen wrote:
    > >
    > > At 15:02 -0800 12/1/0, Norman K. McPhail wrote:
    > > >I submit that if we use the standard of what "...most of the public
    > > >would prefer..." to change the whole structure of our constitutional
    > > >form of self governance, the social, political, economic and cultural
    > > >fabric of the American experiment would quickly unravel. You seem to
    > > >buy the Gore mantra that the supreme authority in this nation ought to
    > > >be making sure all the votes are counted.
    > > >
    > > >Do you really think Mr. Gore cares that much about counting votes?
    > > >Can't you see that the main thing he cares about is winning the
    > > >presidency? To me, he seems to be willing to sacrifice anything that
    > > >gets in his way including the clear and unambiguous U. S. Constitutional
    > > >provisions for electing a president.
    > > >
    > > [...]
    > >
    > > >I don't think this would be Constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution
    > > >is Congress given the power to tell the state legislatures how to
    > > >determine the way they select Electors. As I understand it, Congress
    > > >did pass a law after the 1876 election saying how they would deal with
    > > >counting Electors. In addition, they even went so far as to spell out
    > > >in detail what rules they would use in the event of a controversy
    > > >regarding the Electors sent by a given state. What leads you to suspect
    > > >that Congress could require proportional representation of Electors?
    > >
    > > I would like to remind our estimated subscribers that this is a
    > > mailing list about cybernetic philosophy, not about present
    > > politicial debates. Applying cybernetical reasoning to analyse the
    > > Florida situation is an appropriate subject for a PCP-discuss
    > > message, but discussing the apparent motivations of the candidates,
    > > the pecularities of the US legislation, and one's personal political
    > > preferences is not. I can understand the temptation to get from the
    > > one into the other, but please keep your discussions focused on
    > > cybernetics.There are more than enough other channels to discuss the
    > > political situation. Also take into account that for people outside
    > > the US this is not necessarily interesting or even understandable.
    > >
    > > _________________________________________________________________________
    > > Francis Heylighen <fheyligh@vub.ac.be> -- Center "Leo Apostel"
    > > Free University of Brussels, Krijgskundestr. 33, 1160 Brussels, Belgium
    > > tel +32-2-6442677; fax +32-2-6440744; http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html
    > > ========================================
    > > Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Francis Heylighen <fheyligh@vub.ac.be>
    > ========================================
    > Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "John J Kineman" <John.J.Kineman@noaa.gov>

    ========================================
    Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Don Mikulecky <mikuleck@hsc.vcu.edu>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 06 2000 - 14:07:41 GMT