[EM] Cloneproof SSD

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I've just received Norm's posting, and I won't be able to reply
to it till tomorrow, but right now I'd just like to mention that
there may be a misunderstanding about my definition of Cloneproof SSD.

When I say "Schwartz set", I mean "current Schwartz set". In fact
that's usually what I say when I define SSD or Cloneproof SSD.

"Drop the weakest defeat that's among the Schwartz set. Repeat till
there are no cycles among the current Schwartz set."

[end of Cloneproof SSD definition]

Actually, my Cloneproof SSD proposal includes the add-on tiebreaker
that says "If when this procedure concludes, it has undeated more than
1 candidate, then drop all the others, and repeat the procedure
with those remaining. Repeat this paragraph's preceding instruction
till either only 1 candidate is undefeated, or till the repetition
has failed to reduce the number of undefeated candidates. In the latter
case, choose among the undefeated by Random Ballot.

(This is the same add-on tiebreaker that is added on to Schulze).

I suspect that Norm's claim about nonmonotonicity results from a
belief that Cloneproof SSD is like DCD or IBCM. It isn't. I don't
say: Working only in the initial Schwartz set, drop each cycles's weakest 
defeat. Re-apply this method to its ties.

Yes I re-apply Cloneproof SSD to its ties, just as Markus does with
Schulze's method. But I don't just use the initial Schwartz set, and
I don't simultaneously drop each cycles's weakest defeat.

So it appears that Norm's claim that Cloneproof SSD is nonmonotonic
results from a misunderstanding of its definition.

Also, Norm said that when SSD is made into Cloneproof SSD, we lose
its simplicity, because we have to mention cycles. Maybe. But even so,
the method's motivation & justification are still much more obvious
than that of Schulze's beatpath method.

Also, Markus might have a wording for Cloneproof SSD that doesn't
mention cycles.

But, additionally, Cloneproof SSD isn't intended as a public proposal.
The Cloneproof feature is quite unnecessary in public elections, where
ordinary SSD will never violate the clone criterion, due to the great
number of voters.

But if an organization uses Cloneproof SSD, it's obvious to anyone that
that provides precedent for ordinary SSD. We just point out that
in a public election we can further simplify the wording, when
citing the organizational use as a precedent.

More after I read the rest of Norm's letter and get a chance to reply.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com