[EM] Two Paramount Criteria

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Craig,

you wrote (20 Dec 2003):
> That is not based on evidence, Mr Simmons.
> The so called Schulze method (that recently appeared in a prestigious
> English publication, namely Voting Matters (PDF files are around),
> had the appearance of failing these strict rules:
>
> (1) The number of winners should be correct.
>    indicates that the Schulze method found the wrong number of winners.
>    As might be expected, Mr Schulze has not commented on that or produced
>    a defence against the allegation. In fact, so very complex is the method
>    in its polytope form (and a optimal method would be much simpler), that
>    the assumption should be that the method is guilty until cleared.

In Section 3 of my paper, I prove that my method is well defined:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/files/nmciswem.pdf

You wrote (20 Dec 2003):
> (2) The method should not have some bias. This fails methods that ignrore
>    the votes and pick the first (not best) candidate on a list the method
>    receives.
>
>    Shulze's believed the count of the papers could be ignored and the number
>    of voters could be counted. That is stupid and some people don't seem to
>    be able to stop or explain themselves without pointing invalid assumptions.

You will have to rephrase this, because I have absolutely no idea what
you are talking about.

You wrote (20 Dec 2003):
> (3) When the papers are like STV' the winners ought be insensitive to the
>   presence or absence of the very last preference in one or more papers.
>   That Schulze method seemed to fail this test.

Please give a concrete example.

Markus Schulze