[EM] Problems with finding the probable best governor

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (26 July 2000):
> Like every BC-complying method, Tideman(wv) will never choose
> outside the Schwartz set when there are no pairwise ties or
> equal defeats.

When there are no pairwise ties then the Schwartz criterion is
identical to the Smith criterion.

You wrote (26 July 2000):
> So, for the purpose of public elections, Tideman(wv) doesn't
> choose outside the Schwartz set, and so, for the purpose of a
> public proposal, Tideman has no fault in that regard.
>
> The fact that it can do so in small committee votes counts
> against it, in comparison to Schulze's method, but that doesn't
> mean that it counts decisively against it for small committees.
> Schulze vs Tideman(wv) for small committee votes is an open
> issue, with different considerations favoring both methods.

That's not my point.

The problem is that Steve wrote that you consider the Schwartz
criterion to be completely unimportant (26 Feb 2000): "I don't
consider the Schwartz criterion to be of value, and neither does
Mike Ossipoff." And you never opposed to that statement.

Now you suddenly say that you consider the Schwartz criterion to
be very important (23 July 2000): "It's _obvious_ that the members
of an innermost unbeaten set are uniquely deserving of winning."

My point is that if you don't consider a given criterion to be
of value and then you suddenly consider this criterion to be
very important and use this criterion to argue against other
methods, then you should at least explain _why_ you have changed
your opinion about this criterion so abruptly. Otherwise your
argumentation seems to be quite arbitrary and you cannot expect
anybody to follow your argumentation.

Markus Schulze
schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de
schulze at math.tu-berlin.de
markusschulze at planet-interkom.de