[EM] MAM vs Schulze

Toby Pereira tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Oct 6 02:02:48 PDT 2016

I agree. I don't find it compelling at all. For any deterministic Condorcet method, I could devise another one where the winner pairwise beats the winner of that one more often than vice versa. Someone could have a method they call BEST METHOD. Then all I have to do is say under my new method, elect the Condorcet winner if there is one. If there isn't, elect a candidate that pairwise beats the winner using BEST METHOD, if there is one (pick at random if there's more than one). Otherwise just pick the same winner as BEST METHOD.

      From: C.Benham <cbenham at adam.com.au>
 To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com 
 Sent: Thursday, 6 October 2016, 4:26
 Subject: Re: [EM] MAM vs Schulze
 That chance of that happening in a real public election is close enough to zero, so therefore "MAM versus Shulze" 
 strikes me as pointless.
 And if it didn't I wouldn't find the argument that one's winner pairwise beats the other's a small proportion  of times more
 than vice versa very compelling.
 Chris Benham
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161006/f712513c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list