[EM] Realism of Tideman vs Schulze numerical testing

Blake Cretney bcretney at postmark.net
Sat Nov 4 22:41:55 PST 2000

In response to Craig Carey, 

I just read your posting.  I think you should organize your thoughts
better.  It takes a lot of work to even piece together what you're
trying to say, let alone find a cogent argument.  I just don't see
remarks like

> Property 3 ought be rejected too since it wrong for all elections
> with 0 winners.

as being worthy of comment.

>  From time to time, the Condorcet defender scrape off their shoes a
> bit of a rebuttal saying something like: you need to have very
> small
> expectations of our methods.  

I have a web site that defends Tideman's method:


Mike also has written extensively in favour of Condorcet on various
web sites.  Of course, others write to this list.  Lots of people
have defended Condorcet.  You may not agree that they have done so
successfully, but none that I know of have tried to defend Condorcet
simply by saying that you must have low expectations.  What your
statement suggests to me is that you have no interest in our
arguments.  You won't read them, so why should I bother to restate
them.  I think you summed up your opinion when you said

> So much for the hypothesis that open-mindedness is desirable.

Blake Cretney

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list