[EM] Participation & SARC

Markus Schulze schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de
Tue May 9 01:43:26 PDT 2000

Dear Mike,

you wrote (8 May 2000):
> Markus wrote (8 May 2000):
> > I don't understand your comment. Could you -please- explain it?
> > As far as I remember correctly, it was me who posted those
> > examples showing how IRO fails participation (13 Dec 1999,
> > 14 Dec 1999). Why do you claim that you posted those examples?
> > Does it make any difference whether you or me posted those
> > examples?
> I don't know--does it? I didn't mean to bring up an issue about
> who posted it.
> Why do I claim that I posted it?
> I claim that I posted an example of IRV failing Participation
> because I posted such an example a few days ago. I have no idea
> what you posted before I rejoined this list early this year.
> In a recent posting you said that participation is the mathematical
> formulation of a claim that IRV advocates make for IRV. In that
> posting you seemed to be implying that IRV meets Participation.
> But now that you've brought up the issue of who posted something
> first here, I'll bring up something unimportant that I was going
> to let go: When you got angry because Steve joined Blake in
> giving advantages of Tideman over Schulze's method, you said that
> it was you who introduced beatpaths to this list, and that it
> was you who introduced clones to this list. Wrong. I posted the
> beatpath definition of the Schwartz set long before you joined the
> list. And we were discussing clones (by a different name) before
> you were participating.

I know that all those things were known before I joined this list.
The unique reason why you discussed only MinMax and Copeland is that
you wanted to give to other people the possibility to introduce new
methods to this list.    ;-)

I was just surprised that you posted your IRO bad examples shortly
after this topic has been discussed in great detail in December 1999.
I just thought that you wanted to show with your IRO bad examples
something interesting that hasn't been discussed in that discussion
in December 1999.    :-o


You wrote (8 May 2000):
> Let me clarify that: I didn't interpret that statement as saying
> anything about SARC. You indeed made the statement that you
> refer to, but you made other statements too. I only say this
> because you asked, but you really did reply to a statement
> about SARC by saying that one can't nontrivially discuss
> a property without having a mathematical formulation. The
> discussion there was not about generalizing criteria to deal with
> probabilistic methods. When I asked what mathematical formulation
> problem SARC has, you said that you hadn't meant that, and I
> said "Fine".

There was the discussion whether Moulin's participation criterion
presumes sincere or sophisticated voters. I wrote that and why
Moulin presumes sincere voters (5 May 2000). Also Steve came to
the conclusion that Moulin presumes sincere voters (5 May 2000).

There was the discussion whether sincere or sophisticated voters
should be presumed. You (5 May 2000) and Steve (5 May 2000)
wrote that sophisticated voters should be presumed because it is
unrealistic for real elections that the voters vote sincerely.
I wrote that sincere voters should be presumed because -unless
additional presumptions about the used strategies are made- it is
not unique how a sophisticated voter with a given opinion votes
(5 May 2000).

SARC was merely mentioned. The definition of SARC wasn't
mentioned at all in this discussion.

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

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list