[EM] Criteria reply

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike Ossipoff,

I wrote (18 May 2005):

> Well, although you have been pointed to this error dozens of
> times in the last 5 years and although you have admitted this
> error several times, you keep on using this error as an argument.

You wrote (19 May 2005):

> I have no idea what you mean by that. I've admitted that error
> several times during the past day or two. I don't know what it
> means to say that I use it as an "argument", but yes I use it
> as an explanation for the quotes that you repeatedly link to,
> from about 5 years ago.

On the one side, (although Russ Paielli himself pointed to the
fact that DMC/RAV had already been proposed by Kevin Venzke in
2003) you insult Russ Paielli for having proposed a method that
had already been proposed by someone else. On the other side,
(using your claim that you hadn't understood the Schulze method)
you still claim credit for finding a heuristic for the Schulze
method that uses Schwartz sets. For example, you wrote to Russ
Paielli (14 May 2005):

> I introduced SSD to EM, and you feature SSD at your website.
> (...) SSD is an Ossipoff method, and Russ features it at
> his website. Russ, for someone so critical of me, you still
> advocate my proposals and have them at your website. (...)
> Your website still depends on my method proposals, and on
> literal use of my definitions. That answers the question of
> whether you have any pride or self-respect.

************************************************************

You wrote (19 May 2005):

> I'd come up with CSSD during the Debian discussion, when
> Norm criticized SSD for its lack of clone independence in
> small committees.

In this case, "Norm" refers to me. I wrote (24 July 2000):

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-July/004146.html

> Suppose that the Senate uses SSD to elect its President
> pro tempore. Suppose that 50 Senators are Democrats and
> 50 Senators are Republicans. Suppose that the Democrats
> nominate three candidates A1, A2 and A3 and that the
> Republicans nominate only one candidate B. Then a possible
> situation looks as follows:
>
>    40 Senators vote A1 > A2 > A3 > B.
>    35 Senators vote B > A2 > A3 > A1.
>    15 Senators vote B > A3 > A1 > A2.
>    10 Senators vote A3 > A1 > A2 > B.
>
> The pairwise matrix looks as follows:
>
>    A1:B = 50:50
>    A2:B = 50:50
>    A3:B = 50:50
>    A1:A2 = 65:35
>    A1:A3 = 40:60
>    A2:A3 = 75:25
>
> SSD elects candidate B decisively.
>
> On the other side (A1,A2,A3) is a set of clones. And when this
> set of clones is substituted with a single makro candidate A
> then the situation above looks as follows:
>
>    50 Senators vote A > B.
>    50 Senators vote B > A.
>
> Therefore, independence from clones says that candidate B
> must be elected with a probability of 50% and that one of the
> candidates A1,A2,A3 must be elected with a probability of 50%.

************************************************************

I wrote (18 May 2005):

> Well, the very first time that the term "Schwartz Sequential Dropping"
> (SSD) was being used was on 18 Feb 2000 in a mail by you. In that mail,
> you wrote that "SSD is equivalent to Schulze's method". Actually, the
> fact that "SSD is equivalent to Schulze's method" was your main argument
> for proposing SSD. Therefore, the EM archives don't support your claim
> that "SSD is an Eppley-Ossipoff method".

You wrote (19 May 2005):

> I coined "BeatpathWinner" to name the method that I still call by that
> name. I mistakenly believed that that was what "Schulze's method" means.
> Later, I've repeatedly admitted that Schulze's method does not mean
> BeatpathWinner. And I said that SSD is equivalent to BeatpathWinner,
> because they're equivalent when there are no pairwise ties. That was
> sloppy of me, though it's true in public elections. I've repeatedly
> admitted that it was incorrect to say that SSD is equivalent to
> BeatpathWinner. CSSD is equivalent to BeatpathWinner. SSD isn't
> equivalent to BeatpathWinner, though in public elections, where
> there are no pairwise ties, they amount to the same thing. I coined
> "BeatpathWinner" to name the method that I still call by that name.
> At that time I mistakenly believed that Schulze's method meant
> BeatpathWinner. I said that SSD was equivalent to  BeatpathWinner
> because they're equivalent when there are no pairwise ties. That was
> admittedly sloppy, and I've corrected that error many times during
> the last few days. I suggest that you read what you're replying to,
> and then it won't be necessary to repeat things for you so many
> times. But it's ridiculous to say that that was my main argument
> for proposing SSD. I justified, and still do justify, SSD because
> of its advantages, which I've named in recent e-mails.

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". The EM archives don't show any connection
between Steve Eppley and SSD. They suggest (1) that you knew my method
when you proposed SSD, (2) that you knew that SSD _is_ my method,
and (3) that you proposed SSD _because_ it is my method. Thus,
the EM archives support my claim that SSD is a Schulze-Schulze
method. And again you use your claim that you hadn't completely
understood the Schulze method as an argument. I suggest
that you should read what you're replying to, and then
it won't be necessary to repeat things for you so many
times.

************************************************************

I wrote (18 May 2005):

> You want to know what's wrong with that? Well, on the one side
> you claim that you are having quite productive discussions with
> other people off-list. And on the other side, you neither forward
> nor save such discussions. Do you have some kind of politics
> like "discuss in a constructive manner only off-list"?

You wrote (19 May 2005):

> I had very productive offlist discussions. Excluding you
> [= the EM mailing list] 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? Who is this "Norm"? Norman
Petry? Norman Petry isn't an active member since 3 years.

************************************************************

You wrote (19 May 2005):

> At the time that SSD was devised, and when Steve proposed
> the BeatpathWinner Criterion, I wasn't on the list.

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):

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-February/003600.html

> 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.

Markus Schulze