<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0">
<TITLE>[Condorcet] Plain English description of Schulze(wv)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText96899 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>The plain English description
of Shulze is pretty good except for the last step (5), which is incorrect.
In Shulze you nullify the weakest defeat <U>in a cycle</U>. The "in a
cycle" part is extremely important.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>To see this point suppose that after
(properly) eliminating some weak defeats you get to the point where the
remaining defeats are</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>X>Y>Z>X, A>B>C>A,
and X>A. Suppose that the X>A defeat is the weakest of these.
To nullify it would wipe out the information that the winner should come
from the XYZ cycle.</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Forest</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Condorcet@yahoogroups.com on behalf of
John B. Hodges<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tue 9/13/2005 3:08 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
Condorcet@yahoogroups.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Condorcet] Plain English
description of Schulze(wv)<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Jeff Fisher wrote:<BR>>My attempt, slightly more formulaic:
[for Schulze(wv) ]<BR>><BR>>1. Use voters' rankings to simulate an
instant round-robin of<BR>>head-to-head contests among all candidates in a
race.<BR>><BR>>2. If one emerges undefeated, then that candidate is
declared the<BR>>winner. Otherwise...<BR>><BR>>3. Find the
smallest set of candidates whose only defeats are to one
another.<BR>><BR>>4. Sort the pairings within that set according to
the number of<BR>>votes on the winning side.<BR>><BR>>5.
Discard/nullify/ignore the result of smallest winning vote and<BR>>go back to
#2.<BR>><BR>>-- JRF [Jeff Fisher]<BR><BR>(JBH) BRAVO! This is the first
description of the Schulze method that<BR>I've seen, that the averge voter might
finish reading.<BR><BR>My concern has been whether the tie-breaking
(cycle-breaking) method<BR>had intuitive appeal, whether the winner of a
tie-breaker could make<BR>a plausible claim to being the legitimate "people's
choice". The<BR>above description is clear enough, that the claim is weak but
about<BR>as good as one might expect, given that the election is basically
a<BR>tie.<BR><BR>There are many other tie-breakers that might be imagined. Some,
like<BR>having a plurality of first-rank votes, are simpler than the
above.<BR>This is where the technical analysis and long vetting of the
Schulze<BR>method may carry weight with the voters- not in persuading them
to<BR>consider or adopt the method, but to dissuade them from tinkering<BR>with
it. We can say, "Lots of people have already done that, it's<BR>surprisingly
hard to find a tie-breaker that does not have unwanted<BR>side-effects. This one
has been found to do the job
relatively<BR>cleanly."<BR>--<BR>----------------------------------<BR>John B.
Hodges, jbhodges@ @usit.net<BR>Do Justice, Love Mercy, and Be
Irreverent.<BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></P></DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>