[EM] Fw: IBCM, Tideman, Schulze

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

it would also be interesting to know _why_ you prefer
Tideman to Schulze.

You wrote in your 4 June 2000 mail
(http://www.egroups.com/message/election-methods-list/5479):
> What I've heard on this list about Tideman(wv)/MTM & Schulze
> seems to all point the same way: Criteria, winner comparisons,
> decisiveness. Tideman seems to have Schulze's method beat.

[1] Of course, you can say that you don't care about beat path
GMC. Of course, you can say that you don't care about the strong
formulation of Clone Independence criteria. But then you cannot
say any more that Tideman(wv)/MTM was better than Schulze due to
criteria.

[2] If you really care about winner comparisons then
why did you promote SD and SSD? SD and SSD are worse
than Schulze due to winner comparisons
(http://www.egroups.com/message/election-methods-list/5431).

[3] Steve's claim that Tideman(wv)/MTM was more decisive than
Schulze is out of date.

Steve wrote in his 26 Feb 2000 mail
(http://www.egroups.com/message/election-methods-list/5039):
> IBCM and MTM are more decisive than Schulze or Path Voting.

In so far as Steve didn't specify how IBCM and Tideman(wv)/MTM
solve tied situations it is clear that Steve's statement
was quite speculative. In his 3 June 2000 mail
(http://www.egroups.com/message/election-methods-list/5454)
Steve proposed Random Ballot as a tie breaker so that
he had to withdraw his statement that Tideman(wv)/MTM
was more decisive than Schulze
(http://www.egroups.com/message/election-methods-list/5465).
You should also read my 4 June 2000 mail
(http://www.egroups.com/message/election-methods-list/5475).

Steve wrote in his 3 June 2000 mail
(http://www.egroups.com/message/election-methods-list/5465):
> I erred when I wrote that MTM is more decisive.

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