[EM] MAM vs Schulze

[C.Benham]

Mike,

As far as I can tell, for all intents and purposes  MAM,  Schulze, River 
and  Smith//MinMax (wv)  are all just different wordings
of the same method.

If you think that MAM  is better than Shulze, then what criterion (that 
we might care about) is met by MAM and not Shulze?

Or perhaps you have some example in mind where you think the MAM winner 
is much prettier than the Schulze  winner?

> MAM's brief definition just says:
>
> A defeat is affirmed if it isn't the weakest defeat in a cycle whose 
> other defeats are affirmed.
>

C: Is that definition fully adequate?  It doesn't tell you where to start.

> So, if it will be rare for them to differ, does that mean that we 
> should propose the more complicatedly-worded, elaborately- worded one?
>
> ...the less obviously, naturally and clearly motivated & justified one?
>

C: Recently you accepted that  Winning Votes  is at best "maybe a bit 
questionable", so why do you think that we should "propose" either?

If  you want a Condorcet method that meets  Chicken Dilemma then I 
prefer both "Benham"  and  Losing Votes (erw) Sorted Margins Elimination.

If you want a method that (like WV) meets Minimal Defense then I prefer 
Forest's  "Max Covered Approval"  (which would nearly always be equivalent
to Smith//Approval, which I also like.)

Chris  Benham


On 10/7/2016 3:03 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
> Chris--
>
> Sure, the only reason to use MAM instead of MinMax is for if there's a 
> larger Smith set.
>
> We could propose MinMax, and assure people that the situations where 
> it fails MAM's criteria will never happen.
>
> I guess "Don't worry, it will never happen" is what FairVote assured 
> people in Burlington.
>
> Is that a good idea?
>
> And so, it's on the assumption that there could be a Smith set with 
> more than 3 candidates, that we speak of how MAM & Schulze differ.
>
> So, if it will be rare for them to differ, does that mean that we 
> should propose the more complicatedly-worded, elaborately- worded one?
>
> ...the less obviously, naturally and clearly motivated & justified one?
>
> MAM's brief definition just says:
>
> A defeat is affirmed if it isn't the weakest defeat in a cycle whose 
> other defeats are affirmed.
>
> Though CIVS never has a top cycle for 1st finisher, it often has them 
> farther down in the finishing order.
>
> I've only looked at the Smith-set of one of those: the poll regarding 
> laws for bigamy.
>
> It's Smith-set was approaching around 10 when I stopped counting. ( 
> The cycle was far down in the finishing order).
>
> Maybe short rankings caused that result, or maybe the 1-D spectrum 
> assumption doesn't hold for low finishing positions.
>
> Michael Ossipoff
>
>