[EM] SCRRIRVE; my folly

[Markus Schulze]

Dear James Green-Armytage,

you wrote (20 Jan 2004):
> Perhaps someone else (Markus?) can tell us why Raynaud isn't
> discussed more often. I imagine that there is a good reason for it,
> since Raynaud is just about as obvious as WV minimax / sequential
> dropping, and thus must have been discussed at some point.

Those election methods where successively the weakest candidate,
according to a given heuristic (e.g. MinMax, IRV, Bucklin, Borda), is
eliminated and the scores of the remaining candidates is recalculated
usually violate monotonicity.

Another problem is: When we agree e.g. that Reverse IRV finds the
worst candidate, then it is difficult to argue why IRV doesn't find
the best candidate.

Markus Schulze