[EM] Markus, 22 Marach, '05, 0318 GMT
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sat May 21 20:16:49 PDT 2005
On the other side,
(using your claim that you hadn't understood the Schulze method)
I fully admit that I didn't know then what you meant by "Schulze method".
And, as for your posting of CSSD, I hadn't read it, and therefore didn't
know what count rule you were describing. So yes, I hadn't heard of CSSD.
you still claim credit for finding a heuristic for the Schulze
method that uses Schwartz sets.
I've never claimed credit for Schulze's method. I don't even know what it
is. No, don't bother telling me again; if I wanted to find out what it is,
I'd look in the archives.
But yes, I said that I devised CSSD, though I fully agree that you devised
and posted it first. So that hardly can be called claiming credit. And I
said that I (with Steve Eppley's help) devised SSD. That, too, was with no
prior knowledge about CSSD. And, as I said, CSSD is not SSD.
Let me digress a bit here, and say that you're attaching an unnecessary
amount of importance to credit. As you may having noticed, for nearly the
entire time that you've been on EM, I"ve shown no ilnterest in credit or
priority. Likewise, before you joined the list. For nearly the entire time
that I've been on EM, I showed no interest in credit or priority.
When did I take an interest in it? When I wanted to deny Russ the use of wv.
So I correctly pointed out that I was the one who had introduced wv to EM.
It's true. I introduced wv to EM.
It never occurred to me to assert that, till I chose to do so in order to
deny Russ the use of wv. Of course, as I said, that depends on Russ's pride,
if any, and Russ, last time I checked, still features wv at his website. So
much for his pride and self-respect.
Likewise with SSD. First, of course I'm the first to admit that my claim on
SSD isn't as strong as my claim on wv. You had described CSSD before I
devised SSD. SSD is quite similar to CSSD, differing only in the stopping
rule (SSD's stopping rule will make a lot more sense to the public).
Contrary to what you imply, I don't claim that I have priority for CSSD just
because I wasn't aware of your description of it when I devised it.
But though CSSD is similar to SSD, it isn't the same. That, and the fact
that the idea for SSD came from Steve, rather than from you, give me
justification for saying that I and Steve devised SSD, and that I was the
first to post a definition of SSD. That definition that link to, and which
you like to call an SSD definition is not an SSD definition. No amount of
repetition of the same statements can change those facts.
But, though my motive in pointing out that I introduced wv was to deny it to
Russ, there's another good reason for it: Because credit and priority are
everything to you, and you've sometimes been ridiculously boastful. So, for
that reason, it entertained me to point out that I introduced wv, and that,
therefore, your "Schulze method" is nothing but one of several ways of using
As I said before, the merit difference between the various wv versions, such
as BeatpathWinner, Ranked-Pairs, SSD, CSSD, or "Schulze's method", whatever
that is, etc., is completely insignificant compared to the difference
between wv and Margins. Or the difference between wv and IRV, etc.
>I'd come up with CSSD during the Debian discussion, when
>Norm criticized SSD for its lack of clone independence in
In this case, "Norm" refers to me. I wrote (24 July 2000):
Actually, no. In this case, "Norm" refers to Norm. (Norman Petry).
I don't care what you posted about that. CSSD was devised because Norm, not
you, objected to SSD's lack of clone-independence in small committees,
during the Debian electioni-reform discussions.
Your "reply" is very long. But you didn't address what I wrote.
I wrote that the EM archives don't support your claim that "SSD is
an Eppley-Ossipoff method".
I addressed that, and told why your statement is incorrect.
The EM archives don't show any connection
between Steve Eppley and SSD.
You can take my word for that. The archives do show that I was the first to
post a definition of SSD to EM.
They suggest (1) that you knew my method
when you proposed SSD
How would they show that? Did I say something about your CSSD before I
introduced SSD? No. All the archives show is that you'd posted CSSD before I
posted SSD. Irrelevant. CSSD is not SSD.
If I had known about CSSD, CSSD would still not be SSD.
, (2) that you knew that SSD _is_ my method,
How do the archives show that I knew that SSD was your method. When I
introduced SSD, I posted it as a new method, making no reference to any
method of yours. So it's odd that you imagine that the archives show not
only that SSD is your mehtod, but also that I knew that it was
and (3) that you proposed SSD _because_ it is my method.
It's funny that you think the archives show that. When I introduced SSD, I
told why I propose it. I propose it because of its advantages, the criteria
it meets, and because of its obvious and natural motivation and
justification, and the fact that it makes no mention of cycles or beatpaths.
I certainly didn't say "I'm proposing SSD because it's Markus's method" :-)
the EM archives support my claim that SSD is a Schulze-Schulze
...but only in your imagination.
And again you use your claim that you hadn't completely
understood the Schulze method as an argument.
I don't know that that means. But I fully admit that in those days I
mistakenly thought that "Schulze's method" meant BeatepathWinner.
Beatpathwinner is the name that I coined and gave to the method that I still
call by that name. I make no claim to the method that I call BeatpathWinner.
But perhaps what you're trying to say is that I claim, correctly, that I
wasn't aware that you'd posted CSSD at the time when I devised and posted
SSD. You keep repeating that I use that as an argument. I state it as a
fact, but it isn't my justification for saying that SSD is my proposal and
not yours. My justification for that statement is the fact that, though
you'd posted CSSD, you had not posted SSD. I was the first to post SSD.
That's why I say that SSD is an Eppley-Ossipoff method, not a Schulze method
or a Schulze-Schulze method. :-)
that you should read what you're replying to, and then
it won't be necessary to repeat things for you so many
That repetition and re-use of something that someone else has just said is
an elementary school argument technique.
>I had very productive offlist discussions. Excluding you
[= the EM mailing list] ...
Wrong. "You" means you. You must use a funny dictionary, one in which "Norm"
means "Markus", and "You" means "EM". :-) Actually, when I said "You", I
meant you (Markus).
>from that discussion was Norm's
>suggestion, not mine.
So you say that "Norm" suggests that you shouldn't forward
interesting mails to this list?
Is that what I said? I thought I said that it was Norm who suggested
excluding you from the Debian electoral reform discussion.
No one on the Debian electoral reform committee suggested, or even
considered, posting that committee's discussion to a mailing list.
Norm (Norman Petry) invited a few people from EM to participate in the
Debian electoral reform committee. He said that he wasn't inviting you
(Markus), because we already knew what method you would advocate, and
because you weren't someone who would consider several proposals and
objectively discuss them and choose between them.
Who is this "Norm"? Norman
That is correct.
Norman Petry isn't an active member since 3 years.
And that is relevant to...what? For one thing, the discussion was a few
years ago, when Norm sometimes posted to EM. For another thing, the matter
of whether or not Norm was on EM at that time is quite irrelevant to what I
For the sake of completeness, Steve Eppley used the term
"Schulze criterion" for what Mike Ossipoff now calls
"BeatpathWinner Criterion". Steve Eppley wrote (23 Feb 2000):
I don't call anything the "BeatpathWinner Criterion". I have, however,
referred to Steve's Beatpath Criterion (BC).
After making that statement above, Markus then osts a quoted posting from
Steve, in which Steve names and defines the Beatpath Criterion (Not the
Markus says that Steve calls his criterion the "Schulze Criterion", but if
you read the posting that Markus quotes below, you'll find that what Steve
actually said was that his Beatpath Criterion isn't overboard like Schulze's
Criterion. Not quite the same thing?
Markus, this shows that you're all confused, and that you haven't a clue
what you're saying or what you're quoting.
Markus' quote of Steve follows:
>I've been using a different criterion, which dispenses with
>the "absolute majority" requirement, and so is more general:
> Beatpath Criterion (BC)
> Let Vij denote the number of voters who ranked i ahead of j,
> for any pair of alternatives i&j.
> Let Bji denote the strength of the strongest beatpath
> from j to i, for any pair of alternatives i&j.
> If Vij > Vji and Vij > Bji then j must not finish ahead of i.
>The "ideal" majoritarian criterion, if it were not sometimes
>impossible to satisfy, is:
> If Vij > Vji then j must not finish ahead of i.
>The Beatpath Criterion is possible to satisfy, and is not
>as overbroad (what Blake calls "restrictive") as what might be
>called the Schulze criterion (if Markus doesn't object to using
>his name this way):
> If Bij > Bji then j must not finish ahead of i.
The thing is-is, this is a prime example of Markus' carelessness about the
accuracy or inaccuracy of his statements.
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
More information about the Election-Methods