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

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Craig Carey,

you wrote (4 Feb 2005):
> IFPP satisfied many types of Woodall's monotonicity
> since it is Truncation Resistant too.

Your IFPP method violates:

  mono-raise
  mono-raise-random
  mono-raise-delete
  mono-add-top
  mono-add-plump
  mono-remove-bottom
  mono-sub-top
  mono-sub-plump
  mono-append
  independence of clones
  majority for solid coalitions
  Condorcet
  consistency
  participation

Your IFPP method satisfies:

  later-no-help
  later-no-harm
  plurality

IFPP doesn't satisfy many of Woodall's criteria.

******

You wrote (4 Feb 2005):
> I shall quit this mailing list immediately after writing this,
> to get away from some people here:
> * the arrogant idiot 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 ?.
>
> Why should the electoral officers of cities have an interest in
> MARKUS 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
> MARKUS SCHULZE for the first time ?.

Instead of insulting those who don't agree with you, you should
rather try to convince them. Please convince me that IFPP is
better than my method!

******

You wrote (4 Feb 2005):
> 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).

Well, the reason why I have never used the term "fairness"
or "fair" is simply that in the social choice theory the
terms "anonymity" or "anonymous" (= fair to the voters) resp.
"neutrality" or "neutral" (= fair to the candidates) are
being used.

******

You wrote (4 Feb 2005):
> 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.

Well, in my opinion, it is neither desirable nor undesirable
that the winner depends only on the pairwise matrix. I have
never argued that the winner should depend only on the
pairwise matrix. I have never claimed that the fact that
the winner of the Schulze method (aka Schwartz sequential
dropping, cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping, beatpath
method, beatpath winner, path voting, path winner, strong
immunity from binary arguments) depends only on the pairwise
matrix was an advantage of this method.

Markus Schulze