[EM] MAM vs Schulze

[Michael Ossipoff]

(Replying farther down)

On Oct 6, 2016 2:14 AM, "Toby Pereira" <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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.

(endquote)

Sorry, no good.

MAM's winner doesn't beat Schulze's winner in that contrived manner.

The MAM winner beats the Schulze winner for a simple, obvious reason:

MAM doesn't disregard a defeat unnecessarily or without obvious, compelling
justification. Schulze does.

Look at the brief, simple, natural & obvious MAM definition that I posted.

Michael Ossipoff
>> ________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Marcus,
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ----
> 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/20161008/a9df2607/attachment.htm>