[EM] "Approval" name out; VM17 Schulze theory fails; 80k Sincere Votes equals 80k Voters?

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Craig Carey,

you wrote (30 Jan 2005):
> Your article requires that you define a sum. You use the words
> "number who prefer". The word "number" is undefined.

In UK English and in USA English, the term "number" is a very
frequently used term. Unfortunately, I don't know the corresponding
term in NZ English.

************************************

You wrote (30 Jan 2005):
> Obviously you wanted to sabotage your article so that everyone who
> didn't have your stupid preferences belief would have great problems
> getting an algorithm out of it.

So you say that preferences are "stupid"? Isn't also your favorite
single-winner election method (i.e. IFPP) a preferential single-winner
election method?

************************************

You wrote (30 Jan 2005):
> You can't solve 0 winner elections. That is because you could
> be guillotined if caught talking about set functions returning
> empty sets. The subtle emotions of living under terror makes
> you unable to create one English sentence breaking your secrecy
> on why you have suffered in an anti-0-winner misery for so long.
> I can solve the 0 winner election and you can't.

In the 0-winner case, all election methods are identical. Independently
on who runs and on how the voters vote, each candidate is elected with
zero probability. Is there anything more that can be said about 0-winner
elections?

************************************

You wrote (30 Jan 2005):
> No government will use your Condorcet variants because a candidate can
> win with 0% of the vote. Now we have thought of the voters and it turns
> out that they are represented with civil servants.

I guess with "0% of the vote" you mean "0% of the first preferences".
Actually, in so far as it is possible that candidate A gets 0% of the
first preferences and is, nevertheless, a Condorcet candidate, the fact
that a given candidate can win with 0% of the first preferences is a
property of all Condorcet methods and not a special property of my
Condorcet variants.

************************************

You wrote (30 Jan 2005):
> Why don't you think in a way that slowly creates all the ideas. You
> keep reality EXTREMELY separated from the mathematics. OSSIPOFF seems
> to never do that. He has brain activity instead of reasoning.

I would be very happy if you showed more brain activity before you post
your mails.

Markus Schulze