Markus's '98 Cloneproof SSD wording

DEMOREP1 at aol.com DEMOREP1 at aol.com
Sat Mar 17 17:56:10 PST 2001

```Mr. Schulze wrote in part-

Blake Cretney demonstrated in his 3 Nov 1998 mail that
monotonicity is violated when one simply re-applies this algorithm
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/1955).

Example 1:

3 voters vote A > B > C > D.
2 voters vote D > A > B > C.
2 voters vote D > B > C > A.
2 voters vote C > B > D > A.

The pairwise matrix looks as follows:

A:B=5:4
A:C=5:4
A:D=3:6
B:C=7:2
B:D=5:4
C:D=5:4

B and D are SSD winners. When SSD is re-applied among candidate B
and candidate D, then candidate B wins decisively.

Example 2:

One voter changes from D > A > B > C to  A > D > B > C

3 voters vote  A > B > C > D.
1 voter  votes D > A > B > C.
1 voter  votes A > D > B > C.
2 voters vote  D > B > C > A.
2 voters vote  C > B > D > A.

The pairwise matrix looks as follows:

A:B=5:4
A:C=5:4
A:D=4:5
B:C=7:2
B:D=5:4
C:D=5:4

A, B, and D are SSD winners. When SSD is re-applied among candidate
A, B, and D then no further reduction of the winner-set can be
achieved. Therefore, Random Ballot is used so that candidate D
wins with a probability of 1/3. This can be interpreted as
a violation of monotonicity.
---------
D- I note again that changing votes is a very major election felony.

I note that if there are 1 or a few *changed* ballots (with the other ballots
staying the same), then there can be *changed* results.

Hardly a surprise --- since changing starting conditions routinely can change
the results -- commonly called the *scientific method*.

Basic point-- the election method being used operates on the votes cast (not
a zillion repeat elections having the same choices and the same voters).

When there is only a 1 vote difference in head to head results, then there
should be no surprise if 1 voter changes his/her ballot ---- as if such voter
(only) suddenly detected the results of all the other *secret* ballots
(through criminal knowledge) and then changes his/her ballot to maximize
*his/her* power in affecting the results -- depending on the method being
used.

In other words, a whole lot of the criteria floating around are quite
criminal --- (ballots changed- changed results, ballots removed- changed