[EM] Fw: IBCM, Tideman, Schulze

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 28 19:20:21 PDT 2000

>it would also be interesting to know _why_ you prefer
>Tideman to Schulze.
>You wrote in your 4 June 2000 mail
> > 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

Steve wrote a stronger, but more complicated clone (or near-clone)
criterion, but I must admit that the criteria that I understand are
the ones that are defined in one paragraph. If I understood that
criterion, and it were shown that Schulze meets it and Tideman(wv)
doesn't, then I don't deny that that would likely count for Schulze
against Tideman(wv).

If there's a briefly-defined clone criterion, and it's demonstrated
that Schulze meets it and Tideman(wv) doesn't meet it, would you
re-state its definition here? Or tell me its message-number in the

>[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

I was interested more in the winner comparison between Tideman(wv)
& Schulze, because those methods were the contenders for best.

I've suggested SD & SSD for public proposals, but, because they
don't meet the clone criterion, and because their monotonicity is
more in doubt, I don't consider them as contenders for absolute best.

I must have missed it if someone said that they'd demonstrated that
SD & SSD lose to Schulze in winner comparisons. I'm not saying it
isn't true, only that I missed the statement. I'll check the
archives message you refer to above.

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Schulze is out of date.

I know. I no longer use that claim.

>You should also read my 4 June 2000 mail

I'll check it out.

Mike Ossipoff

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

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list