[EM] MAM vs Schulze

[Toby Pereira]

What do you mean by unnecessarily disregarding a defeat?

 
      From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
 To: Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk>; election-methods at electorama.com 
 Sent: Saturday, 8 October 2016, 23:15
 Subject: Re: [EM] MAM vs Schulze
   
(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

   
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161009/208e0326/attachment.htm>