[EM] simple definition of Schulze method?

[Juho Laatu]

You could try to describe the very central
Condorcet principle in an understandable
way and then add "Schulze" as an attribute
(just as a name that is not explained in
detail) if you want and need to point out
that particular Condorcet method.

Maybe something like "Would you like to
use the Schulze method that always elects
the candidate that would win every other
candidate?"

(Depending on the formulation one may need
to add "...whenever such a candidate exists".)

Juho


--- On Thu, 4/6/09, Árpád Magosányi <magwas at rabic.org> wrote:

> From: Árpád Magosányi <magwas at rabic.org>
> Subject: [EM] simple definition of Schulze method?
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Date: Thursday, 4 June, 2009, 4:46 PM
> Hi!
> 
> I am planning to initialize a referenda in my country to
> change our voting system.
> I want to propose Condorcet, and want to draft the
> referenda question in a way which makes no room for the
> legistrator to fall back to some ancient method when there
> is no Condorcet winner. I prefer Schulze method.
> 
> 
> The problem is that our constitution and its interpretation
> leaves very narrow place to draft a referenda question.
> The question should be clear, and it should be simple as
> well. The criteria so far executed by our Constitutional
> Court are the following:
> 
> 
> There should be one question. - I need to state multiple
> criteria, and some may interpret them as several questions.
> I can reason that the question is one, which refers to a set
> of criteria which would be meaningless without each other.
> 
> 
> There should be no specialized word. - "The average
> voter should be able to understand." So "Do you
> agree to vote our parliament members with a cloneproof
> Condorcet method which always produces a winner?"
> won't work.
> 
> 
> There should be no explanations of terms and ideas in the
> question. - "The average voter should be able to
> understand." Constitutional Court ruled that ideas and
> terms which need explanations are beyond that.
> 
> 
> It should be easily understandable. - "The average
> voter should be able to understand." Well, our whole
> constitution is built on the assumption that citizens are
> dumb. There might be some place here as I can point to the
> current text of voting law which contains D'Hont method
> as a small piece of the description of our voting system,
> and a small set of criteria is much simpler than that.
> 
> 
> It should be definitive. - "Would you like a voting
> system which reflects the different views of voters better,
> and the winnig strategy for candidates is to cooperate"
> would be rejected because there are so many interpretation
> of it.
> 
> 
> I think the right way would be draft the question with
> simple words through criteria which should be satisfied.
> Can you help me by proposing such simple definitions of key
> criteria? Specifically I could not find a criteria which
> would not contain "beat-path" and be specific to
> Schulze.
> 
> 
> I am sorry to ask the impossible, but we are in a dire need
> here.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>