[EM] CVD wants Alt.V to be fairer but it isn't: misleading website

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Craig,

you wrote (2 Oct 2000):
> Markus wrote (2 Oct 2000):
> > By the way: I don't promote IRV. But in so far as every
> > election method has some problems, it makes no sense to
> > criticize an election method simply because it has some
> > problems. The unique sensefull way to criticize an
> > election method is to propose another election method
> > and to explain why this other election method is better.
>
> Fixing the Alternative Vote results in a simple method. If
> I am handling the maths then it might not seem so simple.
>
> The British Electoral Reform Society could fast track
> solutions using computer aided guessing and have the Alt.Vote
> method tweaked.
>
> You talk about senseful criticism. I had sensible criticism:
> I set out a proposition that FPTP is better than the
> Alternative Vote because it passed more of the listed more
> essential rules than the Alternative Vote. They both passed
> the 3 above, but only FPTP passes the P1 test which is the
> 4th in this small sequence.

Does that mean that you want the CVD to promote FPP?

******

You wrote (2 Oct 2000):
> So Mr Schulze is uninterested in the CVD website?.
>
> The method the CVD wants to promote is fixable: let them tell
> us why it has not been fixed. Instead Mr Schulze tried to say
> it was my problem. The data indicates that the CVD is possibly
> unaware of a problem, or hiding it. Perhaps the topic of the
> CVD could be abandoned and we could write about Great Britain?.
>
> What is the use of the word "properties"?. What about my
> duality rule?. It is not quite proven. The Approval Vote and
> the FPTP method get past that. I suppose SSD/Skhulze  doesn't/
>
> Why does Mr Markus Schulze uphold the rejection of
> monotonicity or monotonicity and truncation resistance, ?.
>
> He too wuld have voters and their lifes altered adversely at the
> whim or error of a bad method that was not monotonic?.
> I don't suppose anybody wants to know why that is Mr Schulze's
> stance or view.

I consider the independence from clones criterion to be more
important than the participation criterion. Therefore I prefer
IRV to FPP.

Markus Schulze
schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de
schulze at math.tu-berlin.de
markusschulze at planet-interkom.de