[EM] VoteFair representation ranking recommended for Czech Green Party

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Richard Fobes,

you wrote (2 May 2010):

> Once again Markus Schulze is trying to discredit
> the Condorcet-Kemeny method.

If I really wanted to discredit this method, then
I would mention ...

... that this method violates independence of clones.

... that this method has a prohibitive runtime so
that it is illusory that VoteFair representation
ranking could ever be used e.g. to fill 7 seats
out of 30 candidates.

... that, although this method has been proposed
more than 30 years ago, it has never been used by
a larger organization.

... that many of the claims in your book are
ridiculous; for example, your claim that
this method was strategyproof and satisfied
independence of irrelevant alternatives.

*********

You wrote (2 May 2010):

> This is ironic because "his" method -- which he
> calls the Schulze method, and which would more
> meaningfully be called the Condorcet-Schulze method
> -- produces the same results as the Condorcet-Kemeny
> method in most cases.

I call my method "Schulze method" and not "Condorcet-
Schulze method", because I consider the Condorcet
criterion to be only one criterion among many criteria.

*********

I wrote (29 April 2010):

> Does the San Francisco Bay Area Curling Club still
> use the Kemeny-Young method? If not, why did it
> abolish the Kemeny-Young method?

You wrote (2 May 2010):

> This club continues to use VoteFair ranking, a subset
> of which is the Condorcet-Kemeny method.

In 2009, the announcement said:

> We will be using the VoteFair system. In this system,
> you rank all the candidates in order of preference and
> the most preferred candidates will get the office. You
> will rank *all* the candidates in order of preference.

In 2010, the announcement said:

> The two nominees with the most votes will hold office
> for two years, the nominee with the third highest level
> of votes will hold office for one year.

Markus Schulze