[EM] Problems with finding the probable best governor

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>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."

Steve was right: I don't consider the Schwartz criterion important
enough to use to argue for discarding Tideman's method. I made it
clear in my previous message, however, that I agree that failure of
the Schwartz Criterion counts against Tideman, in comparison to
Schulze, _for small committee voting_. But since that criticism
doesn't exist for public elections by Tideman, I don't consider that
small committee failure to have any importance at all for Tideman
in public elections. As I also said in the previous message about this,
I feel that, though Schwartz Criterion failure counts against Tideman
, compared to Schulze & SSD, for small committee votes, I don't feel
that it counts _decisively_ against Tideman, even in small committees.
As I said in the previous message, those various messages have
different advantages, and each has considerations for & against it.
Tideman is a first class method.

>
>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.

But I also made it clear in my previous messgage that when I said

"It's _obvious_ that the members
>of an innermost unbeaten set are uniquely deserving of winning."

...I meant it in the context of when one is defining SSD for someone
using a diagram. I meant, and was correct in saying so, that
what SSD does is obvious & natural, and that that can't be said for
Schulze's method.

But my statement that you quoted, and that I quoted in the paragraph
before last is obviously true, even outside the context in which
I used it. It _is_ obvious that the members of an innermost unbeaten
set are uniquely deserving of winning. What did I previously say
that contradicted that? You don't know, do you.

And so I've clarified that for you in the previous message, and,
again, in this one: Steve was right, because, though a failure of
the Schwartz Criterion obviously counts, it doesn't mean anything
in public elections where it won't happen with Tideman. And even
in small committees where it could happen, with a sufficient number
of pairwise ties, it would be rare. For that reason, and due to
Tideman's advantages, I don't even consider that rare Schwartz
Criterion failure to count _decisively_ against Tideman in small
committees. And public elections are of more practical interest.

I hope this clarifies the apparent contradiction. Yes, Schulze
wins a point against Tideman in small committees, due to the
Schwartz Criterion. Point, but not necessarily game.

Mike Ossipoff








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

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com