[EM] Desperate to use Pareto?

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Fri Jun 2 17:55:15 PDT 2000

>I want you to remember that the Ossipoff Subcycle Method (= your
>favourite method until August 1998) actually violates the Pareto

What's the Ossipoff Subcycle Method? If you mean what I used
to call the "subcycle rule", it was a way to avoid subcycle
fratricide. It was never my favorite proposal. I never considered
a proposal. The subcycle fratricides it avoided included subcycles
that weren't clone sets.

Later, I defined another method for that purpose, years ago.
I liked it better than the subcycle rule.

It seemed to me at the time that it did as well by lesser-of-2-evils
standards as the other methods that I liked, with the added
protection against defeats in subcycles affecting which subcycle
turns out to be the one containing the winner.

You pointed out that it could violate Pareto. But that didn't
seem important, because I was more interested in majority rule
between the elements of the main cycle, than the Pareto Criterion
within a subcycle. It violated the Pareto criterion if there was
a unanimous defeat within a subcycle. So what? If that subcycle
should be the winner, with respect to the main cycle, ensuring
that defeats within the subcycle won't spoil that win seems more
important than whether Pareto is violated within the subcycle.
I felt that what happens in the main cycle is more important.

I don't know if either of those subcycle-protecting methods
would meet BC, or would strictly meet MDC or GSFC. It doesn't
matter, since they were never proposals.

This was all just hypothetical, since I never proposed those


In any case, your bringing up methods that were defined but
never proposed, and which haven't even been discussed for almost
2 years, seems unexplainable. I said that Pareto is useless because
it is failed by so few methods. You named one method that failed
Pareto, a method that was never proposed. Are you saying that
Pareto is an important criterion because a never-proposed method
that hasn't been discussed for 2 years fails it? Then let me
clue you in, Markus: the subcycle rule isn't really a burning

As I said, a criterion that is failed by as few methods as
Pareto is is pretty much useless for comparing voting systems.
Sure, you can find uses for it if you assiduously search the
archives. Another thing I recommend to you: You can use Pareto
to compare Sequential Pairwise to other methods. Good luck, and
have fun.


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

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list