[EM] Markus, 18 May, '05, 0423
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Tue May 17 21:21:25 PDT 2005
I proposed that heuristic for the Schulze method that uses Schwartz sets
Yes, Markus, you just finished posting those two links, and I just finished
commenting on them. I guess it will be necessary for me to repeat what I
said: You posted a definition of CSSD. SSD is not CSSD. Well, that isn't
everything that I said, but I'm not willing to say it all over again just
because you repeat what you said yesterday.
In Feb 2000, we discussed which Condorcet method should be proposed to
the Debian project. See e.g. here:
You weren't included in that discussion, because it was felt that you'd
advocate one particular method without being willing to consider other
proposals. Maybe there was also some discussion about that on EM.
In your 15 Feb 2000 mail, you discussed 3 methods: "Drop Contradicted
Defeats" (DCD), "Sequential Dropping" (SD), and Schulze:
As I said yesterday, and as I said last month, in reply to the same repeated
statement: At that time I thought that "Schulze's method" meant
BeatpathWinner. But last month you clarified that "Schulze's method" does
not mean BeatpathWinner, because BeatpathWinner is an instance of a larger
class of methods that you call "Schulze's method".
You apparently have nothing to do but repeat the same statements that you
Then in your 18 Feb 2000 mail, the term "Schwartz Sequential Dropping" (SSD)
was used for the very first time. In that mail, you did not only admit that
you knew my method, you also admitted that you were aware that SSD _is_ my
At that time I thought that BeatpathWinner was your method, not realizing at
that time what "Schulze's method" actually means. And, as I said yesterday,
and as I said last month, in reply to the same repeated statement, I, at
that earlier time, carelessly said that SSD is equivalent to BeatpathWinner,
because it's equivalent to BeatpathWinner when there are no pairwise ties.
When there are pairwise ties, SSD is not equivalent to BeatpathWinner. CSSD
is equivalent to BeatpathWinner, but SSD is not. I've admitted that error
last month, and yesterday, but you keep repeating that quote.
Therefore, it is clear (1) that you knew my method when you "devised" SSD
I knew of BeatpathWinner when I and Eppley devised SSD. I at that time
thought that BeatpathWinner was you rmethod, because at that time I didn't
realiize that, as you said last month, "Schulze's method" means something
I didn't know of your CSSD definition, because I hadn't read those postings,
and didn't know what count rule they described. But that's irrelevant,
because SSD is not CSSD.
and (2) that it was clear to you from the very beginning that SSD _is_ my
I and Steve had never heard of SSD or CSSD at the time when we devised SSD.
But, in any case, SSD is not CSSD, and is not your method in any sense. Even
if we had known about CSSD, SSD is not CSSD, and is not your method.
>Where did SSD come from? In individual e-mail, Steve Eppley suggested a
>method that successively drops the weakest defeat among the smallest set
>of candidates that is unbeaten from without. SSD is an Eppley-Ossipoff
Please forward this communication between Steve Eppley and you.
I don't save e-mail back to those days. But my mention of SSD on EM is in
the EM archives. That's really all you need.
like to know why (although you considered neither independence of clones
nor reversal symmetry important and although Steve Eppley decided to
promote Tideman's ranked pairs method) you decided to promote SSD.
SSD is clone independent in public elections. Only in small commitee voting,
where there can be pairwise ties, is SSD not clone-independent.
I advocate SSD for public elections. For small committees I recommend CSSD
So SSD is clone independent for the application for which I recommend it.
Reversal symmetry? You're right. I don't consider reversal symmetry
important. Pretty much all criteria sound plausible and desirable, but that
doesn't make them important. I'm not going to argue with you about whether
reversal symmetry is important. You're welcome to believe that it's
You ask why I decided to promote SSD. Because it's clone-independent in
public elections, and because it meets SFC, GSFC, WDSC, and SDSC. And
because it doesn't require mention of cycles or beatpaths.
And you seem surprised that I'd promote SSD when Steve prefers MAM. Why do
you expect me to copy Steve on that? Actually, Ranked-Pairs has a very brief
definition, if we ignore the rules for equal defeats. But those equal defeat
rules can't be completely left out. And RP's definition, directly or
indirectly, mentions cycles. So I consider SSD to be a better public
In the matter of SSD vs RP, in terms of pure merit, in public elections, RP
might very well be _very slightly_ more aesthetically appealing, because RP,
unlike BeatpathWinner, CSSD, or SSD, never lets a nullilfied defeat
participate in the nullification of other defeats.
But I consider the merit differences between RP and SSD completely
negligible in public elections. That's where Steve and I disagree. What's
wrong with disagreeing?
So I propose what, it seems to me, is more likely to be accepted.
>We've recently been all over that. I won't repeat that argument, but, to
>summarize the conclusion that we reached recently, I admitted that I was
>mistaken when I thought that "Schulze's method" means the method that I
>call "BeatpathWinner". "Schulze's method" does not mean BeatpathWinner.
Your "reply" doesn't make any sense. In 2000, you _defined_ the
term "beatpath winner" as a synonym for the Schulze method.
At that time I mistakenly believed that 'Schulze's method" meant the count
rule that I call "BeatpathWinner". I've only explained that about five times
in the last 24 hours, and at least a dozen times last month.
term "beatpath winner" hadn't been used before.
Correct. I coined that name for the method that I still call by that name.
The method that I mistakenly thought that "Schulze's method" meant.
doesn't make any sense when you now claim that you only mistakenly
believed that "beatpath winner" was a synonym for the Schulze
I coined "BeatpathWinner" as the name for the count rule that I still call
by that name. Earlier, I mistakenly believed that "Schulze's method" meant
that count rule.
The terms "beatpath winner" and "Schulze method" are
synonymous terms because you _defined_ them to be synonymous
I coined "BeatpathWinner" to refer to the count rule that I still call by
that name. At the time you're referring to, I mistakenly believed that
"Schulze's method" meant that count rule.
Now, if you have anything more to say, you might want to try to be sure that
it's something new, something different from what you've already been
saying. To most, that might be an obvious good idea, but it's something that
you don't seem to understand.
If you post more repetition of those same statements that I've already
answered many times, I won't reply. No one can stop you from posting the
same statements again, and, knowing you, it's a safe bet that you will. But
I'm not going to answer them again for you. I won't reply.
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
More information about the Election-Methods