<p dir="ltr">(Replying farther down)</p>
<p dir="ltr">On Oct 5, 2016 11:13 AM, "Markus Schulze" <<a href="mailto:markus.schulze@alumni.tu-berlin.de">markus.schulze@alumni.tu-berlin.de</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hallo,<br>
><br>
> on the other side, the simulations have also shown that<br>
> the worst pairwise defeat of the Schulze winner is usually<br>
> weaker than the worst defeat of the MAM winner.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(endquote )</p>
<p dir="ltr">The MAM winner has no defeats that aren't  nullified by being the weakest defeat in a cycle whose other defeats are affirmed.</p>
<p dir="ltr">...and those affirmed stronger defeats are affirmed because that _can't_ be said of them.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Additionally, I remind you that our topic is MAM vs Schulze. Therefore the pairwise comparison most relevant here is the pairwise comparison between MAM & Schulze.    ...a comparison which MAM wins several times more often than Schulze does.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Michael Ossipoff</p>
<p dir="ltr">> Norman Petry writes: "Schulze and Smith//PC are in agreement<br>
> on the choice of winner over 90% of the time, regardless of<br>
> the size of the Smith set, whereas Tideman's method diverges<br>
> in its choices as the size of the Smith set increases."<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-November/069868.html">http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-November/069868.html</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods-list@eskimo.com/msg02310.html">https://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods-list@eskimo.com/msg02310.html</a><br>
> <a href="https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/election-methods-list/conversations/topics/5948">https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/election-methods-list/conversations/topics/5948</a><br>
><br>
> Jobst Heitzig writes: "Note that Beatpath and Plain Condorcet<br>
> are unanimous in all these examples!"<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-May/078166.html">http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-May/078166.html</a><br>
> <a href="https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/election-methods-list/conversations/messages/14251">https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/election-methods-list/conversations/messages/14251</a><br>
><br>
> Barry Wright writes: "[In the 3-candidate case] Least Worst<br>
> Defeat and Schulze [are] disagreeing on only three elections<br>
> per thousand." "We do notice that Least Worst Defeat and<br>
> Schulze continue to show a very coherent response, agreeing<br>
> in nearly ninety-nine percent of all elections through<br>
> seven candidates."<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://services.math.duke.edu/~bray/Courses/49s-GTD/Senior%20Theses/Barry%20Wright/Barry%20Wright's%20Thesis.pdf">https://services.math.duke.edu/~bray/Courses/49s-GTD/Senior%20Theses/Barry%20Wright/Barry%20Wright's%20Thesis.pdf</a><br>
><br>
> Markus Schulze<br>
><br>
> ----<br>
> Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</p>