Explaining Schulze

[Blake Cretney]

 On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 22:21:45    DEMOREP1 wrote:
>Mr. Cretney wrote in part--
>
>3.  We will only disregard a majority preference if it is contradicted by
>greater majority preferences.
>-----
>D- I suggest that the *major* (i.e. total) problem for the public would be the
>dropping of ANY majority result in a tiebreaker cycle.  The defeated candidate
>and the folks in such majorities would be very highly critical of the method.
>
>I suggest again that the last YES choices on all ballots be dropped to
>eliminate choices.
>
>Example--
>
>Voters vote YES/NO on each choice and vote 1, 2, etc.
>5 choices in a circular tie (each has a YES majority).
>The 5th YES vote on all ballots would be dropped with the head to head math
>being rechecked.   If necessary, the 4th, the 3rd, etc. YES votes would be
>dropped.
>
Hmmm, this sounds more like a criticism of majority methods
in general than a criticism of Schulze, or my explanation of
Schulze.  That is, since the public sometimes has irreconcilable
majority preferences, it is necessary to sometimes go against majority
wishes.  This is true whether or not a voting system allows majority
wishes to be expressed, and whether or not it tabulates them.

It sounds to me like what you're saying is, "I have so much respect for
majority rule, that I could never conscience knowingly going 
against the will of the majority.  So, I'm careful never to find
out the majority will on any question.  That way, I'm never in conflict."



-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/  Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums