[EM] Participation & SARC

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Tue May 9 16:24:15 PDT 2000

>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.

And yet, a few months ago you said that you introduced those
things to the 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.    ;-)

Where would we be without Markus?

We didn't only discuss those 2 methods (I assume that by "MinMax"
you mean Plain Condorcet). But the "unique reason" why we discussed
only the methods that we discussed was that those were the methods
that were being proposed at that time. What's your point?

Is it that you introduced a new method to the list? So what?
New methods have been introduced, at various times, by various
people. It would seem that you've let that "go to your head" in
a way that no other method proponent here has.

You told us about Tideman's method, and you described the
beatpath-comparison method that you said Tideman also wrote about.
Though you'd said that Tideman had mentioned that method, you
began considering it your own. I refer to the method that's been
known as "Schulze's method", and which I'll sometimes call
"Beatpath Winner".

If "Schulze's method" was indeed your own invention, then you
can claim credit for being the first to define a BC complying
method on this list. But you weren't the first to define such
a method--Tideman already had. Maybe, then, you can claim that
you defined the 2nd such method, after reading someone else's
articles about their method of that type.

If, however, you merely copied "Schulze's method" from Tideman,
then of course you still performed a service by relaying those
2 methods to the list. But whether you invented it or copied it,
some of your comments on the list suggest that the "glory" has
unbecomingly affected your opinion of yourself with respect to
the rest of the list.

Then, around the beginning of this year, some of us described
some new Condorcet versions, better than "Schulze's method"
in some ways. That was when Steve also mentioned some advantages
of Tideman's method over yours (if it was yours).

That was difficult for you, because it had been said that
"Schulze's method" was the best". So you reacted with an angry
posting from someone who couldn't give up his glory.

What criterion does "Schulze's method" meet that isn't met by
Tideman's method, which was invented earlier?

Someone pointed out that when Tideman & "Schulze's method"
produce different winners, the Tideman winner will usually
beat the "Schulze" winner. Certainly when "Schulze's method" and
DCD (IBCM) produce different winners, DCD's winner usually will
beat "Schulze's method's winner.

SSD & "Schulze's method pick the same winner when there are no
pairwise ties or equal defeats. But under the conditions where
those 2 methods can differ, "Schulze's method is unnecessarily
indecisive, is indecisive when SSD isn't. It's probably safe to
say that SSD is better than "Schulze's method"

Tideman, DCD, & SSD meet BC, as "Schulze's method" does.

Even before we knew of other BC complying methods, when
"Schulze's method" was the only method that we knew of that
strictly meets MDC (SDSC), I still didn't consider "Schulze's
method" a practical public proposal, because it doesn't have
an obvious & natural motivation & justification. But DCD &
SSD do have that. So not only is SSD more decisive than
"Schulze's method", but it has more natural motivation &
justification, for a proposal.

Most likely, choice of what's "best" is a choice between
SSD & DCD, depending on what one wants from a method.

Maybe it's a difficult thing for you, Markus, but glory can
be temporary.

>I was just surprised that you posted your IRO bad examples shortly
>after this topic has been discussed in great detail in December 1999.

You shouldn't still be surprised by that: I wasn't on the list
in December 1999. I posted my badexample (just one of them)
right after you implied that IRV meets Participation. So I wanted
to show that it doesn't.

You seem obsessed by "priority". I'll take your word for it that
you posted an IRV/Participation badexample before I did here
(but it does seem to me that I wrote about that situation before
December). But it's a sure thing that neither of us was the first
to discover that IRV doesn't meet Participation. The person who
first proposed that criterion surely must have known that.
For someone who asked if it matters which of us posted the
example(s), you seem much obsessed about priority, as if
you feel that no one knew about IRV's failure of Participation
until you posted about it.

>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

As I said, I wasn't on the list in December 1999. What I wanted to
show was that IRV doesn't meet Participation. You'd just said
that Participation is the mathematical forumulation of a property
of IRV.

>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).

That Participation assumes sincere voting was my assumption from
the start.

>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).

I'm not sure what you mean by "It is not unique how a sophisticated
voter...votes", but so what? The criteria that deal with
strategic voting don't "presume" how someone will vote.

Some of them talk about what strategies are necessary for a
certain accomplishment. One of them is about what can happen
if voters vote in a way that could conceivably give them their
best possible result.

One of the criteria speaks of there being no incentive for
dumping a favorite, with a complying method.

No one's "using presumptions about how strategies are made".

But I don't care which criteria you like or use, and it's none
of my business if you prefer to avoid all mention of strategy.
This started when I told why I don't value Participation highly,
but I have no wish to convince you to be interested in strategy
as a subject for criteria.

Mike Ossipoff

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

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list