[EM] Fw: IBCM, Tideman, Schulze

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Steve,

you wrote (3 Jun 2000):
> Markus wrote (3 Jun 2000):
> > By the way, when Schulze, path voting, SD and SSD are more
> > intuitive than IBCM and DCD for the members of this mailing
> > list then I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be true
> > for "members of the general public."
>
> I'm unaware of any poll in EM about which is more intuitive. I 
> believe Mike Ossipoff and I consider IBCM (DCD) more intuitive 
> than Schulze.

Actually, as far as I have understood Mike correctly, he considers
SD and SSD (which are identical to the Schulze method as long as
the pairwise matrix doesn't contain two identical elements) to be
very intuitive. He only complains that my definition of the Schulze
method is too complicated (3 Jun 2000): "When you start talking
about beatpaths, and how to measure their strength, your listener
will feel that it's all arbitrary. Sure, it makes sense its own way,
but would he have any reason to believe that the count should be
done by that rule, out of all the possible rules? Dropping the
weakest defeat from among those that are in conflict is obvious &
natural." In so far as your definition IBCM method also requires the
calculation of the beat paths, I conclude that Mike also considers
the IBCM method to be less intuitive.

[Actually, you can also define the Schulze method without using
beat paths. You only have to slightly modify Mike's definition
of SD and SSD: When there are q pairwise defeats with the same
strength, then -instead of dropping them simultaneously- you check
all q! possible ways to drop these q pairwise defeats.

Actually, you can also define your IBCM method without using beat
paths as Mike pointed out in his 8 March 2000 mail.

Therefore, Mike is rather criticizing your and my complicated
language than our election methods.]

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