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

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (3 Oct 2000):
> I prefer Tideman(wv) & SSD to PC because they meet GSFC & SDSC, and
> PC doesn't. Also, they meet some criteria that the academics like,
> and which PC doesn't meet, such as Smith, and certain criteria that
> go with Smith, such as Condorcet Loser, Mutual Majority (for what it's
> worth), and Majority Loser. So of course I prefer Tideman & SSD.

Because of the above mentioned reasons you once promoted Smith//PC.
Why do you now think that Smith//PC isn't sufficient any more? Why
do you now think that you have to promote what you call the "better
Condorcet versions" (which are significantly more complicated than
Smith//PC) to get compliance with the Smith criterion?

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