[EM] Tideman and GMC
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sat May 13 15:11:11 PDT 2000
> "Therefore, to my opinion, whether candidate A or candidate C
> is elected shouldn't depend unnecessarily on the strength of
> the pairwise defeat B:D."
>That constitutes a vaguely worded criterion. I'd be interested
>in seeing a rigorous wording. I anticipate that the rigorous
>wording will resemble the following:
> Alternative x must be defeated if there exists an alternative
> y such that the strongest beatpath from y to x is stronger
> than the strongest beatpath from x to y.
Wait, those aren't the same, are they? Markus's method meets
the 2nd one, but not the first one.
>It appears to me that Markus has failed to offer any substantive
>criticism of my argument that Schulze appears at least as
>manipulable as methods like MTM and IBCM. His only argument
>still standing is that it may be harder to explain MTM or IBCM
>to the public than Schulze. Even that argument is dubious, for
It certainly isn't more difficult to explain IBCM to the public,
as compared to Markus's method. IBCM is equivalent to DCD. DCD
has an extremely brief definition:
"Drop each cycle's weakest defeat.
If that rule produces a tie, by undefeating more than 1 candidate,
then re-apply that rule to its tie, repeating till there's only
1 unbeaten candidate."
(I don't include the definition of "weakest defeat", since
all the methods in this comparison require that definition).
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the Election-Methods