<p dir="ltr">It was probably my 23-candidate, 19-party 2016 presidential poll.</p>
<p dir="ltr">By the way, without Bernie, Jill Stein is CWv, beating everyone by a large factor.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Trump finished at _bottom_ among the original candidates (the two write-ins were too recent to have a chance to get much support).</p>
<p dir="ltr">Jill beat Donald by a factor of several to one.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The lowest-finishing socialist best Trump by a factor of 2 to 1.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The lowest finishing socialist beat the highest-finishing Republican by a factor of 1.5 to 1.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sampling bias? With Jill finishing 1st & Donald finishing last, will you say that sampling bias justifies saying that Trump might beat Stein in an honest election with honest media? That would take rather a lot of sampling bias.</p>
<p dir="ltr">:^)</p>
<p dir="ltr">...because only some have computers? People who have more money are known to be more conservative.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> Yes, some polls show Hillary beating Jill. In my poll, Hillary finished 5th.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Drastic differences like that must result from different electorates. ..the poll being announced to different people.</p>
<p dir="ltr">...to partisan organizations in particular.</p>
<p dir="ltr">My poll was announced only at the polling website (CIVS), and at Democracy Chronicles.</p>
<p dir="ltr">...not to any partisan organizations.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Michael Ossipoff<br></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 6, 2016 10:22 AM, "Michael Ossipoff" <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">No, it wasn't the polygamy poll that I looked at. It only has 5 alternatives.</p>
<p dir="ltr">It was one of the others. I don't know which one.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Michael Ossipoff</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 6, 2016 9:33 AM, "Michael Ossipoff" <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Chris--</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sure, the only reason to use MAM instead of MinMax is for if there's a larger Smith set.</p>
<p dir="ltr">We could propose MinMax, and assure people that the situations where it fails MAM's criteria will never happen.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I guess "Don't worry, it will never happen" is what FairVote assured people in Burlington.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Is that a good idea?</p>
<p dir="ltr">And so, it's on the assumption that there could be a Smith set with more than 3 candidates, that we speak of how MAM & Schulze differ.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So, if it will be rare for them to differ, does that mean that we should propose the more complicatedly-worded, elaborately- worded one?</p>
<p dir="ltr">...the less obviously, naturally and clearly motivated & justified one?</p>
<p dir="ltr">MAM's brief definition just says:</p>
<p dir="ltr">A defeat is affirmed if it isn't the weakest defeat in a cycle whose other defeats are affirmed.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Though CIVS never has a top cycle for 1st finisher, it often has them farther down in the finishing order.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I've only looked at the Smith-set of one of those: the poll regarding laws for bigamy.</p>
<p dir="ltr">It's Smith-set was approaching around 10 when I stopped counting. ( The cycle was far down in the finishing order).</p>
<p dir="ltr">Maybe short rankings caused that result, or maybe the 1-D spectrum assumption doesn't hold for low finishing positions.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Michael Ossipoff<br>
</p>
<div class="m_441778650171068545m_-9032738662753123842gmail_quot<blockquote m_441778650171068545m_-9032738662753123842class=" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="m_441778650171068545m_-9032738662753123842m_7412662953347104770moz-cite-prefix">Marcus,<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Barry Wright writes: "[In the 3-candidate
case] Least Worst
<br>
Defeat and Schulze [are] disagreeing on only three elections
<br>
per thousand."</blockquote>
<br>
In the 3-candidate case, how can "Least Worst Defeat" (aka MinMax
?) and Schulze <b>ever</b> disagree?<br>
<br>
As I understand it, Schulze and MAM and River and Smith//MinMax
can only ever give different winners when<br>
there are more than three candidates in the Smith set.<br>
<br>
That chance of that happening in a real public election is close
enough to zero, so therefore "MAM versus Shulze" <br>
strikes me as pointless.<br>
<br>
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<br>
than vice versa very compelling.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/6/2016 4:43 AM, Markus Schulze wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">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.
<br>
<br>
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 class="m_441778650171068545m_-9032738662753123842m_7412662953347104770moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-November/069868.html" target="_blank">http://lists.electorama.com/pi<wbr>permail/election-methods-elect<wbr>orama.com/2000-November/069868<wbr>.html</a>
<br>
<a class="m_441778650171068545m_-9032738662753123842m_7412662953347104770moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods-list@eskimo.com/msg02310.html" target="_blank">https://www.mail-archive.com/e<wbr>lection-methods-list@eskimo.co<wbr>m/msg02310.html</a>
<br>
<a class="m_441778650171068545m_-9032738662753123842m_7412662953347104770moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/election-methods-list/conversations/topics/5948" target="_blank">https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g<wbr>roups/election-methods-list/co<wbr>nversations/topics/5948</a>
<br>
<br>
Jobst Heitzig writes: "Note that Beatpath and Plain Condorcet
<br>
are unanimous in all these examples!"
<br>
<br>
<a class="m_441778650171068545m_-9032738662753123842m_7412662953347104770moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-May/078166.html" target="_blank">http://lists.electorama.com/pi<wbr>permail/election-methods-elect<wbr>orama.com/2004-May/078166.html</a>
<br>
<a class="m_441778650171068545m_-9032738662753123842m_7412662953347104770moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/election-methods-list/conversations/messages/14251" target="_blank">https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g<wbr>roups/election-methods-list/co<wbr>nversations/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 class="m_441778650171068545m_-9032738662753123842m_7412662953347104770moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://services.math.duke.edu/~bray/Courses/49s-GTD/Senior%20Theses/Barry%20Wright/Barry%20Wright's%20Thesis.pdf" target="_blank">https://services.math.duke.edu<wbr>/~bray/Courses/49s-GTD/Senior%<wbr>20Theses/Barry%20Wright/Barry%<wbr>20Wright's%20Thesis.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>
Markus Schulze
<br>
<br>
----
<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="m_441778650171068545m_-9032738662753123842m_7412662953347104770moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for
list info
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----
<br>
No virus found in this message.
<br>
Checked by AVG - <a class="m_441778650171068545m_-9032738662753123842m_7412662953347104770moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a>
<br>
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4664/13152 - Release Date:
10/05/16
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
<br>----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
<br></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>