[EM] Voting Benchmark

[Marijn Stollenga]

Thank you for the reply. So it seems pretty essential to get these nice
properties. I wonder if there are other ways to get them, i.e. it's not
proven to be the only way to get these properties I guess?

Marijn


On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 13:27 +0200, Markus Schulze wrote:
> Hallo,
> 
> > The votes only flow if A over B has more votes than B over A
> > say. On first sight this sounds good but introduces a sensitivity
> > in the
> > method that can completely flip results with a small change of
> > votes,
> > also leading to possible loss of votes and tactical voting. Why
> > can't
> > votes simply flow both directions? In my implementation I tried it
> > and
> > it still led to dominant results in my experiments, but I guess
> > it's
> > needed for certain properties?
> 
> Here is my paper:
> 
> http://m-schulze.9mail.de/schulze1.pdf
> 
> The presumption that wins are always stronger that losses is
> presumption (2.1.2).
> 
> Presumption (2.1.2) is needed to prove compliance with the
> Schwartz criterion, the Smith criterion, and independence
> of Smith-dominated alternatives.
> 
> Presumption (2.1.2) is not needed to prove transitivity,
> resolvability, Pareto, monotonicity, reversal symmetry,
> or independence of clones.
> 
> Markus Schulze
> 
> 
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
> info