Markus's '98 Cloneproof SSD wording

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

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 
results, ballots added- changed results).

Also, in the above 2 examples ---

Which of the choices get a majority of YES votes ???

Which group of voters is the *true* majority (or *true* minority) ???