[EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 96, Issue 22

[Nicholas Buckner]

> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:20:53 +0200
> From: "Markus Schulze" <Markus.Schulze at alumni.TU-Berlin.DE>
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] Herve Moulin's proof not really a proof
> Message-ID:
> 	<d76091f684180377bc65b7dc26eafe75.squirrel at mailbox.alumni.tu-berlin.de>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Dear Nicholas,
>
> just tell me who wins in the mentioned 7 situations and
> I will tell you where your method violates the participation
> criterion or the Condorcet criterion:
>
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-February/019497.html
>
> Markus Schulze

Main example: A>D>B>C
Case 1: A>D>B>C
Case 2: D>B>A>C
Case 3: B>C>D>A
Case 4: A>B>D>C
Case 4a: C>A>B>D
Case 4b: B>C>A>D

Only Condorcet applies. I updated the paper description, adding
"flawed" and "trying to".

One oddity:
When reviewing the reshuffle after case 4a and 4b, I noticed a
positive trend in order reassignment:

4a:
original order  |  new votes' order  |  new order
A | A | C +2-1
B | C | A -1
D | B | B +1
C | D | D +1
net: +4-2

4b:
original order  |  new votes' order  |  new order
A | C | B -1
B | B | C +2
D | A | A +2
C | D | D +1
net: +5-1

Given my luck, it is probably pointless,
Nicholas