[EM] Criteria reply

Russ Paielli 6049awj02 at sneakemail.com
Wed May 18 10:56:39 PDT 2005

Markus Schulze markus.schulze-at-alumni.tu-berlin.de |EMlist| wrote:

> Sorry for my sloppy formulation. I didn't mean to offend Russ
> Paielli.

No offense taken, Markus. However, since you (and perhaps others too) 
were a bit uncertain about what actually transpired, let me walk you 
through the chronology.

Here is the key excerpt from my first post on combining Condorcet and 
Approval (this is not yet DMC/RAV):


I just got an interesting idea. It's so simple that I'll be very 
surprised if it has not been proposed before, but I did not see it on
Blake Cretney's methods page.

Why not combine Condorcet and Approval into a hybrid election method?
The voter ranks the candidates, but truncates at his approval cutoff
point. If a Condorcet winner exists he wins, otherwise the winner is
determined from the Smith set using Approval rules, where ranked
candidates and considered approved and unranked candidates are
considered unapproved.

And here is my first mention of what we now call DMC, RAV, or DMC/RAV:


I would start by simply choosing the CW if one exists, or paring the
field down to the Smith set otherwise. Then I would eliminate the
candidate with the lowest approval and repeat.

I thought of this yesterday while I was working out, and I thought I had
come up with something big. Then I searched the EM archives and
discovered that Kevin Venzke had mentioned it way back in 2003.

So imagine how I felt when I read this classic little gem from Mike:


But I will briefly comment on Russ's advocacy of methods that combine
ranking with ratings. Kevin had proposed such a method, and later Russ
announced his invention of that method on EM. Later it was pointed out 
to  Russ that that method had been proposed on EM before Russ mentioned 
it. But even after that, Russ continues calling it by his own name for it.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list