[EM] Tideman and GMC

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sat May 13 15:11:11 PDT 2000

EM list--

>    "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
>several reasons:

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).

Mike Ossipoff

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

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list