[EM] Criteria reply
markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de
Sun May 15 02:00:22 PDT 2005
you wrote (15 May 2005):
> Well, I told you about Approval, and you still advocate it :-) I introduced
> wv, and it's still featured at yoiur website. :-) I introduced SSD to EM,
> and you feature SSD at your website.
> Yes, Markus can point out that CSSD is equivalent to BeatpathWinner. But
> SSD isn't CSSD. SSD is more publicly proposable. Markus said that he posted
> a definition of SSD, but his link to it showed a definition that could be a
> definition of pretty much anything. That's why I say that I introduced SSD
> to EM. Anyeay, Markus has agreed that "Schulze's method" doesn't mean
> BeatpathWinner. Markus, if you want to challenge any of these statements,
> change the thread subject line. I emphasize that Steve Eppley and I devised
> SSD, and that SSD wasn't my proposal alone.
> The point of all that: SSD is an Ossipoff method, and Russ features it at
> his website.
I proposed that heuristic for the Schulze method that uses Schwartz sets
You now claim that you "introduced SSD to EM" in 2000. But not only
that the definition of "your" heuristic looks suspiciously like my
definition of 1998. You also admitted in that mail that you know my
method and that you are aware that "SSD is equivalent to Schulze's
Therefore, it cannot be said that "SSD is an Ossipoff method".
By the way: The term "beatpath winner" has been introduced by
you in 2000 as a synonym for the Schulze method. You wrote:
> I refer to the method that's been known as "Schulze's method",
> and which I'll sometimes call "Beatpath Winner".
Therefore, your claim that "'Schulze's method' doesn't mean
BeatpathWinner" is false by your own definition.
More information about the Election-Methods