[EM] Participation & SARC

David Catchpole s349436 at student.uq.edu.au
Tue May 9 20:04:48 PDT 2000

Urrk. Which reminds me- my recent quest (well, yeah- maybe 6 months
ago) for a convenient way to index multiwinner rankings led me to the
arcane world of lattice theory. Didn't do much good, but it did occur to
me that those interested in analysis of beatpath methods might want to
afford it a look. Lattice theory commenced with a realisation of the 
equivalence between relational chains and "biggest member" set
functions. To my mind it doesn't generate anything except for those funny
diagrams in "Good Will Hunting," but it may be worth a look especially for
those interested in beatpath methods.

On Tue, 9 May 2000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> >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

-When I makes tea I makes tea, as old mother Grogan said. And when I makes
water I makes water.
						James Joyce

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list