[EM] SSD and BeatpathWinner

Markus Schulze markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de
Wed Nov 26 03:30:46 PST 2003

Dear Mike,

I wrote (25 Nov 2003):
> When Mike means Schwartz Sequential Dropping (aka Beatpath
> Method) with "Condorcet's method", then I think that all
> important questions have been answered in my paper "A New
> Monotonic and Clone-Independent Single-Winner Election Method":
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/files/nmciswem.pdf
> When someone has problems downloading this file (e.g. because
> he isn't subscribed via eGroups) then he can send me a short
> mail and I will send this paper (PDF format; 25 pages; 607 kB)
> to him as an attachment of an email.

You wrote (26 Nov 2003):
> But I didn't say that that's all that I mean by Condorcet's method.
> There are a number of good versions of Condorcet's method. Here are
> some of them:
> Schwartz Sequntial Dropping (SSD)
> Cloneproof SSD (CSSD)
> BeatpathWinner
> Ranked-Pairs (RP)
> Plain Condorcet (PC)
> Sequential Dropping  (SD)

Yes, but Tideman's Ranked Pairs method has already been analyzed here:

1. T. Nicolaus Tideman, "Independence of Clones as a Criterion for
   Voting Rules," Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 4, p. 185-206, 1987
2. Thomas M. Zavist, T. Nicolaus Tideman, "Complete Independence of
   Clones in the Ranked Pairs Rule," Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 6,
   p. 167-173, 1989
3. http://www.condorcet.org
4. http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~seppley

And "Plain Condorcet" isn't difficult to analyze.

Markus Schulze

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list