[EM] Markus, 11 March, 0240 GMT

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (11 March 2005):
> I'd asked:
>
> But which of my criteria use the term "majority-rejected"?
>
> You replied:
>
> Did I say that one of your criteria uses the term "majority-
> rejected"?
>
> I reply:
>
> You said that my criteria apply only to MinMax because
> "majorilty-rejected" applies only to MinMax (whatever you
> mean by MinMax).
>
> Markus said:
>
> You used the concept of "majority-rejected"
> candidates when you proposed MinMax(winning votes).
>
> I reply:
>
> I've used that term, but it has no role in defining my
> criteria, and so It gives you no justification for your
> claim that my criteria apply only to MinMax (whatever
> MinMax means).

Well, you introduced your concept of "majority-rejected"
candidates in 1995 to motivate MinMax(winning votes).
In 1997, I criticized that this concept of "majority-rejected"
candidates cannot be used for other election methods than
MinMax. Therefore, I introduced my concept of "majority
beatpaths" as an alternative.

You now claim that there was "no justification for your
claim that my criteria apply only to MinMax". Well, I don't
know which "criteria" you are talking about. You used your
concept of "majority-rejected" candidates to motivate MinMax
(winning votes) in 1995. You didn't use your "strategy free"
criteria (which have been introduced by you in 2000).

*********

You wrote (11 March 2005):
> You replied:
>
> To be honest, I haven't yet understood when you use the term
> "CSSD" and when you use the term "BeatpathWinner". (To the
> other readers: Both terms are only different names of the
> Schulze method.) In the past, you used to prefer the term
> "CSSD". So is there a special reason why you don't ask?:
> "Does CSSD meet your criterion that you posted as an
> alternative wording for SFC?"
>
> I reply:
>
> You mean, other than that I've defined both termss on EM,
> and at
> http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/sing.html?
>
> Maybe you should have said "To be less than honest,..." :-)
>
> CSSD stands for Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping.
> It's equivalent to BeatpathWinner.
>
> I'd say that BeatpathWinner is another name for what you
> refer to as "Schulze's method", except that your meaning
> of "Schulze's method" has apparently changed, and so I
> don't know for sure which meaning you're using these days.
>
> So, I'm going to give you a definition of BeatpathWinner,
> since you say that you don't understand what the term means:
>
> May I assume that you know what a beatpath is? And that
> you know what is meant by the strength of a defeat, in
> wv methods?
>
> 1. The strength of a beatpath is defined as numerically
> equal to the strength of its weakest defeat.
>
> 2. X has a beatpath win against Y iff the strongest
> beatpath from X to Y is stronger than the strongest
> beatpath from Y to X.
>
> 3. A candidate wins if no one has a beatpath win against
> him/her.
>
> [end of BeatpathWinner definition]

I didn't say that I don't know what "CSSD" or "BeatpathWinner"
means. I said that (in so far as both terms refer to the same
method) I haven't yet understood when you use the term "CSSD"
and when you use the term "BeatpathWinner".

Markus Schulze