MIKE OSSIPOFF vs The list (Re: [EM] I didn't choose to be the topic

Markus Schulze markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de
Tue Feb 1 04:18:23 PST 2005

Dear Craig Carey,

instead of insulting those who don't agree with you,
you should rather try to convince them.

Example 1:

   38 ABC
   32 BCA
   30 CBA

   The IFPP winner is candidate A although a majority of the
   voters strictly prefers candidate B and candidate C to
   candidate A. This example demonstrates that IFPP violates
   e.g. (1) majority for solid coalitions, (2) independence
   of clones, (3) reversal symmetry, and (4) majority loser.

   My method (aka Schwartz sequential dropping, cloneproof
   Schwartz sequential dropping, beatpath method, beatpath
   winner, path voting, path winner, strong immunity from
   binary arguments) satisfies these criteria.

Example 2:

   Suppose, in example 1, 5 CBA voters didn't go to the polls.
   Then example 1 had looked as follows:

   38 ABC
   32 BCA
   25 CBA

   Now, the IFPP winner is candidate B. This example
   demonstrates that IFPP violates mono-remove-bottom.

   My method satisfies mono-remove-bottom in the
   2-, 3- and 4-candidate case.

Example 3:

   Situation 1:

      10 ABCD
      15 BACD
      23 CABD

      The quota is 12. A and D are eliminated in the first round,
      then B beats C.

   Situation 2:

      10 ABCD
      15 BACD
      20 CABD
       3 ACBD

      D is eliminated in the first round. In the second round,
      the quota is 16 so that A and B are eliminated and C wins.

   This example demonstrates that IFPP violates monotonicity.

   My method satisfies monotonicity.

Please convince me that IFPP was better than my method!

Markus Schulze

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list