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