[EM] CVD wants Alt.V to be fairer but it isn't: misleading website

[Craig Carey]

At 02\12\18 12:27 +0200 Wednesday, Markus Schulze wrote:
 >Dear Craig Carey,
 >
 >the concept of clones has been proposed by Tideman:
 >
 >   T. Nicolaus Tideman, "Independence of Clones as
 >   a Criterion for Voting Rules," SOCIAL CHOICE AND
 >   WELFARE, vol. 4, pp. 185-206, 1987.
 >
 >Markus Schulze
 >

Well, you were not writing on a mere "concept" of clones but
somehow got to a seeming conclusion that IRV is best.

Can that be done with a mere "concept". Don't you use reasoning.

I guess that all of the reasoning wide open to being nearly
erased by a meta axiom prohibiting arbitrariness. Some interim
imperfection argument may be called for. Another imperfection
I spotted was the failure to respond to a requestion for a
definition. I am not asking for Mr Tidemans words or
considerations since not ruling out the possibility that one
name or term has many meanings (perhaps all of which may be
precise).

What Mr Tideman wrote is not something that was being
questioned by me. I was not asking about that. I could argue
that that is likely by noting how Mr Schulze wrote on some
"solid coalitions" rule. Recently Mr Sculze wrote on such a
rule of Mr Dummett at the ERS Voting Matters mini journal hosted
at my STV list. The rule of Dummett was clear enough to be there.
That is dissimilar to how Mr Shulze was writing in a recent
message to this list. The formula was missing and particular
of it that people are liable to guess wrong was not precisely
described too. Additionally the choice made by Mr Schulze over
that hard to guess about detail on whether to truncated upwards
was not commented on.

It is almost as if Mr Shulze holds a view that unity results
from a lack of perfect precision, instead of the opposite of
that.


----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em