<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:12px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2747"><span>Hi Marijn,</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2746"><span><br></span></div><div><span>I think you might start with the criteria that motivated Schulze, or criteria that differentiate popular methods.</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2745"><span><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2744"><span>For instance:</span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2743"><span>Schulze: clone independence, monotonicity (mono-raise), Condorcet, Schwartz</span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2720"><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_3009">IRV: clone independence, later-no-harm, later-no-help</span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2720">Approval: participation, favorite betrayal (FBC)</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2720"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2720">Unfortunately it's not necessarily straightforward to demonstrate that a new method satisfies or doesn't satisfy some criterion.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2720"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2720">Some of us have simulations to attempt to gauge the incentives to use specific strategies (e.g. compromise, truncation, burial). But since simulations are based on the programmer's assumptions, nothing is standardized.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2720"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2720">My hunch (based on my own experiments from 10+ years ago) is that if Schulze is your original inspiration or standard, and you make your own rank method, you may make something that gives similar results to Schulze, but most likely it won't satisfy all of Schulze's technical criteria.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2720"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2720">Kevin</div><br> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2636"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2635"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2634"> <hr size="1" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_3043"> <font size="2" face="Arial" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_2633"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">De :</span></b> Marijn Stollenga <m.stollenga@gmail.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">À :</span></b> "election-methods@lists.electorama.com" <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Envoyé le :</span></b> Mercredi 30 septembre 2015 4h12<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Objet :</span></b> [EM] Voting Benchmark<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443615021298_3044"><br>Hello,<br><br>I am implementing a new election method, after initially playing with <br>Schulze voting. In the process I really want to compare my method to <br>Schulze and other methods according to several types of quality. Is <br>there a good benchmark currently, that I can start from?<br><br>Marijn<br><br>----<br>Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em </a>for list info<br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></body></html>