[EM] election-methods-digest Digest V102 #11

Markus Schulze markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de
Sat Jan 19 02:44:35 PST 2002


Dear Mike,

> Let's say that there are N candidates. Then "Random Candidate"
> simply says that --independently on how the voters vote--
> each candidate is elected with the same probability of 1/N.

> An election method violates "Independence from Irrelevant
> Alternatives" when there are situations where you can
> increase the winning probability of a given already running
> candidate by introducing an additional candidate.

******

You wrote (18 Jan 2002):
> Markus wrote (18 Jan 2002):
> > What I criticize is that you spend significantly more time
> > writing that you haven't checked the definitions than it would take
> > to check the definitions. Please check the definitions and stop
> > spaming the EM archives with lengthly mails in which you only write
> > that you haven't checked the definitions! Does it really take so
> > long to check the definitions? Do you need additional help? Do you
> > have problems understanding Random Candidate? Do you have problems
> > understanding Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives?
>
> When I sent that reply that you keep objecting to, it took many times
> less time to disclaim agreement with you than it would have taken to
> return to the archives and check your definition. Actually I said that
> in the original posting that you keep objecting to, but I haven't kept
> saying it, unless it was one of the things that you kept missing and
> which it was therefore necessary to repeat for you. As I just finished
> saying in the message that you're replying to: How long is "so long".
> It was much quicker to disclaim agreement with you than to return to
> the archives to check the definition. I made it clear that the reason
> why I didn't want to imply that I agreed with you was that I didn't
> have the IIAC definition conveniently available, at the time that
> I wrote. So why are you asking me about Random Candidate? You see,
> Markus, this is an example of why I used to call you an ass. I thought
> that I'd made it clear to you that, at the time of writing, I didn't
> have the IIAC definition conveniently available. It shouldn't be
> necessary to repeat that, but apparently, for you it is necessary.
> But I'll tell you what I _don't_ understand: Why do you keep posting
> that idiotic crap to this mailing list. And how long will you be
> allowed to?

Please check the definitions and stop spaming the EM archives with
lengthly mails in which you only write that you haven't checked the
definitions! I want you to remember that you asked me for an example
of a method that meets IIAC. Therefore, it can hardly be called
"offensive" "blather" or "idiotic crap" when I post Random Candidate
as an example and ask you to inspect this example. Why is it impossible
for you to appreciate the fact that Random Candidate meets IIAC?

Markus Schulze



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list