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

[Craig Carey]

At 02\12\18 16:12 +0200 Wednesday, Markus Schulze wrote:
 >Dear Craig Carey,
 >
 >you wrote (19 Dec 2002):
 >> Markus wrote (18 Dec 2002):
 >> > 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.
 >>
 >> What Mr Tideman wrote is not something that was being
 >> questioned by me. I was not asking about that.
 >
 >Then could you please ask your questions more clearly?
 >

I am unable to obtain the document you referred to in the
text you quoted above. The library I have access has a
collection that only started in 1988. Mr Tideman has in
the past, not responded to my e-mail.

It seems almost certain that professor N. Tideman has
entered into a commercial or contractual agreement with
the Springer Verlag, a German company.
a publishing company has been implicitly asked by
Nicholaus Tideman to restrict access to the document
in return for an indirect arrangement involving taxation
from governments where I am expected to pay. A bit of
is leaking out to the university of the economist but
still I have no copy of the document. It would be nice
to shut down those German publishing companies.

----

The criterion is in the title, so it would seem that the
"concept" was not checked to see if it was wrong.

I guess that a preliminary possibility is that Markus
Schulze decided in favour of the Alternative Vote using a
perfectly untested rule.

I guess what happened was this: Mr Schulze guessed from my
comment saying something was arbitrary, that Condorcetianism
itself was under threat. The list has received a lot of
"Condorcet is not trash" comments from Mr Schulze and the
evasive move was to name someone else.

How many arguments (and what are they?), would Mr Schulze
freely like to provide that will permit the deduction the
IRV method is better than the First Past the Post method,
subject to them both receiving STV-style papers ?.

The question puts the topic back exactly where it was in
my last few messages: Shulze is rejecting proportion it
almost seems and that is potentially quite a difficult
stance to argue for partly since it sounds as if it is
able to be quite complex. Proportionality inside of
preferential voting is where each preference is counted
instead of each ballot paper. Just like with ballot papers
they are summed to each subtotal, except that papers
with k preferences are counted k times since having their
weight added to k subtotals.

Mr Schulze wanted a clear question : here is one: is
that proportionality inside of the topic of preferential
voting:
  (a) implied by the given clones rule, or
  (b) implying that rule, or
  (c) fully or partly replacing it.

I speaking on behalf of millions that had presumed that
counting right, was the right way to count, but now Mr Shulze
concluded that the CVD is approximately in the right (nb. Schulze
did actually use Time's and Ritchie's toy naming scheme) and
now it seems discard consideration of Mr Schulze's conclusion
and check that reasoning.

Can it be believed that Mr Schulze will accept arbitrary
quantifier rules are presented as being mere criteria, when
coming to attempting to arrange personal conclusions?.

Here's a photo of Mr Tideman:
http://ashleymac.econ.vt.edu/facprofile.htm#tidemanprofile

The 1987 paper referred to by Markus is listed 2nd in a
short list of only 4 documents by that professor.



G. A. Craig Carey





Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz>    Auckland, New Zealand
Javascript MEDLINE: http://www.ijs.co.nz/med/medline.htm


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