[EM] SCHULZE never used word "fairness" (was Re: MIKE OSSIPOFF vs The list...

[Craig Carey]

I told Mr Schulze that he was all wrong about 4 candidate IFPP, 20 hours
47 minutes before he made public the same wrong ideas.

The explanation is that Mr Schulze says he is talking about IFPP and he is
not. IFPP satisfied many types of Woodall's monotonicity since it is
Truncation Resistant too.

It is staggering that Mr Marculze Schulze could fail to discover what IFPP
is.

---

Also I notice that MIKE OSSIPOFF has not bothered to defend himself after
some lies. I saw the astonishing claim of OSSIPOFF saying that he knew that
the public made mistakes.

---

I shall quit this mailing list immediately after writing this, to get away from
  some people here:
 * the arrogant idtio and liar, "MIKE OSSIPOFF";
 * the 'Less than Zero' student with too much that is dishonest to say,
       Mr Green-Armytage, and

 * the geriatric with the incredible shrinking brain, Mr Forest Simmons. One of
    our slowest learners, I guess. Do we have data on his learning speeds ?.





At 2005-02-03 02:02 +0100 Thursday, Markus Schulze wrote:
...
>Example 4:
>
>   10 ABCD
>   15 BACD
>   20 CABD
>    3 ABCD
>
>   Suppose Craig Carey's IFPP method is being used.
>

Oh, in addition to making a complete message of his message, Schulze is
talking to the audience, and not to me.


>   In the first round, the quota is 12. 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.
>
>   When 7 C voters are added, then this situation looks as
>   follows:
>
>   10 ABCD
>   15 BACD
>   20 CABD
>    3 ABCD
>    7 C
>
>   Now in the first round, the quota is 13.75. A and D are
>   eliminated in the first round. In the second round, B
>   beats C.
>
>   This example demonstrates that IFPP violates mono-add-top
>   and mono-add-plump.
>



If Schulze was boarding the boat of "designing preferential voting methods"
then he must have leapt off the plank and intellectually vanished.


It is starting to look like SCHULZE needs more than a decade to warm up
before being able to start designing politically acceptable 3 candidate
preferential voting algorithms. We have to wait at least another 2,000
days. Possibly at the end he says "IFPP is the best 3 candidate method".

I have some comments in IFPP here: http://www.ijs.co.nz/ifpp.htm
The main thing is that the symbolic quantifier eliminator solver from Germany's
Passau university was just too weak. So I started writing a replacement.
I have about 0.9MB of source code now. Schulze does not ever want to talk
about the start of the art in symbolic algebra quantifier eliminator solvers.

Why should the electoral officers of cities have an interest in
MARCUS SCHULZE when a photo of him shows 3 cows noses, 6 cows ears, tendrils
instead of hair, the eyes of a rat. SCHULZE has a BAD personal beauty problem.

What are chiefs of electoral offices supposed to think when seeing the staggering
ugly photograph of MARCUS SCHULZE for the first time ?.

ALSO, it seems that Mr Schulze has never used the word "fairness" or "fair"
at this mailing list (except by chance when copying someone else's text).

So he is part fish.

The Condorcet topic seems to be one of:
 (1) when you first learnt the lie: and got your first doll.
 (2) and afterwards you have stupid tricks (for mailing lists), e.g.
     both SCHULZE and OSSIPOFF force the public to define a matrix and
     convert the counts of ballot papers, into pairwise comparing matrices.
     On close analysis, that is actually a problem that the public will find
     it impossible to solve. Both SCHULZE and OSSIPOFF are very unhelpful.

     The correct thing to do is stop associating with SCHULZE and OSSIPOFF
     on the grounds that their purpose is too small or wrong or too base
     or too secret.

---

There is a simple principle that runs well both inside of preferential
voting, and outside of it (in the world of electorates):

   -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
       Fairness for Losers and Accuracy for Winners
   -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Fairness is like getting the judge to use rules that make sure that every
 attempt of a lawyer to help himself, never harms himself. In concave
 recesses in polytopes saying who wins, the slopes of surfaces must be
 inside of the bounds.

Accuracy includes the idea of stopping anti-competitive practices, e.g.
 miscounting by Diebold machines (USA, North Carolina).

---

Summarize
(1) Subscribers at this mailing list seem to never do any research.
(2) Also they seem to have no intentions to do research (into preferential
   voting)
(3) Also they are decades away from suggesting that others do research
   into preferential voting.

   We just got to see Simmons talking about clocks. In general edges and
   surfaces of an X-wins polytope won't arrange into a circle (or loop).







--- Craig Carey, Auckland, New Zealand
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/politicians-and-polytopes/messages