[EM] MAM vs Schulze

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 5 13:44:56 PDT 2016

(Replying farther down)

On Oct 5, 2016 11:13 AM, "Markus Schulze" <
markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Hallo,
> on the other side, the simulations have also shown that
> the worst pairwise defeat of the Schulze winner is usually
> weaker than the worst defeat of the MAM winner.

(endquote )

The MAM winner has no defeats that aren't  nullified by being the weakest
defeat in a cycle whose other defeats are affirmed.

...and those affirmed stronger defeats are affirmed because that _can't_ be
said of them.

Additionally, I remind you that our topic is MAM vs Schulze. Therefore the
pairwise comparison most relevant here is the pairwise comparison between
MAM & Schulze.    ...a comparison which MAM wins several times more often
than Schulze does.

Michael Ossipoff

> Norman Petry writes: "Schulze and Smith//PC are in agreement
> on the choice of winner over 90% of the time, regardless of
> the size of the Smith set, whereas Tideman's method diverges
> in its choices as the size of the Smith set increases."
> Jobst Heitzig writes: "Note that Beatpath and Plain Condorcet
> are unanimous in all these examples!"
> Barry Wright writes: "[In the 3-candidate case] Least Worst
> Defeat and Schulze [are] disagreeing on only three elections
> per thousand." "We do notice that Least Worst Defeat and
> Schulze continue to show a very coherent response, agreeing
> in nearly ninety-nine percent of all elections through
> seven candidates."
> Markus Schulze
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161005/e01a3731/attachment.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list