[EM] election-methods-digest Digest V102 #11

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

> Let's say that there are N candidates. Then "Random Candidate"
> simply says that --independently on how the voters vote--
> each candidate is elected with the same probability of 1/N.

> An election method violates "Independence from Irrelevant
> Alternatives" when there are situations where you can
> increase the winning probability of a given already running
> candidate by introducing an additional candidate.

******

You wrote (18 Jan 2002):
> Markus wrote (18 Jan 2002):
> > What I criticize is that you spend significantly more time
> > writing that you haven't checked the definitions than it would take
> > to check the definitions. Please check the definitions and stop
> > spaming the EM archives with lengthly mails in which you only write
> > that you haven't checked the definitions! Does it really take so
> > long to check the definitions? Do you need additional help? Do you
> > have problems understanding Random Candidate? Do you have problems
> > understanding Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives?
>
> When I sent that reply that you keep objecting to, it took many times
> less time to disclaim agreement with you than it would have taken to
> return to the archives and check your definition. Actually I said that
> in the original posting that you keep objecting to, but I haven't kept
> saying it, unless it was one of the things that you kept missing and
> which it was therefore necessary to repeat for you. As I just finished
> saying in the message that you're replying to: How long is "so long".
> It was much quicker to disclaim agreement with you than to return to
> the archives to check the definition. I made it clear that the reason
> why I didn't want to imply that I agreed with you was that I didn't
> have the IIAC definition conveniently available, at the time that
> I wrote. So why are you asking me about Random Candidate? You see,
> Markus, this is an example of why I used to call you an ass. I thought
> that I'd made it clear to you that, at the time of writing, I didn't
> have the IIAC definition conveniently available. It shouldn't be
> necessary to repeat that, but apparently, for you it is necessary.
> But I'll tell you what I _don't_ understand: Why do you keep posting
> that idiotic crap to this mailing list. And how long will you be
> allowed to?

Please check the definitions and stop spaming the EM archives with
lengthly mails in which you only write that you haven't checked the
definitions! I want you to remember that you asked me for an example
of a method that meets IIAC. Therefore, it can hardly be called
"offensive" "blather" or "idiotic crap" when I post Random Candidate
as an example and ask you to inspect this example. Why is it impossible
for you to appreciate the fact that Random Candidate meets IIAC?

Markus Schulze