[EM] unintended changes in pairwise preferences

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Andrew Myers,

you wrote (18 July 2005):

> I've noticed that in practice MAM -- and the deterministic variant
> I developed for CIVS -- both seem to be much more stable than
> Schulze/beatpath winner, though I don't have a good argument for
> why this is. It seems that it's easier to upend the ordering by
> creating long, inobvious beatpaths than it is in MAM.

Are you talking about stability when determining the winner or when
determining the ranking? I have understood your 19 Sep 2004 mail in
such a manner that you are talking about stability when determining
the ranking. You wrote:

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-September/013909.html

> I find that the result seems to be more stable than beatpath winner
> in the sense that individual voters don't perturb the output order
> as much.

Markus Schulze