Dear Craig, you wrote (20 Dec 2003): > That is not based on evidence, Mr Simmons. > The so called Schulze method (that recently appeared in a prestigious > English publication, namely Voting Matters (PDF files are around), > had the appearance of failing these strict rules: > > (1) The number of winners should be correct. > indicates that the Schulze method found the wrong number of winners. > As might be expected, Mr Schulze has not commented on that or produced > a defence against the allegation. In fact, so very complex is the method > in its polytope form (and a optimal method would be much simpler), that > the assumption should be that the method is guilty until cleared.
In Section 3 of my paper, I prove that my method is well defined: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/files/nmciswem.pdf You wrote (20 Dec 2003): > (2) The method should not have some bias. This fails methods that ignrore > the votes and pick the first (not best) candidate on a list the method > receives. > > Shulze's believed the count of the papers could be ignored and the number > of voters could be counted. That is stupid and some people don't seem to > be able to stop or explain themselves without pointing invalid assumptions. You will have to rephrase this, because I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You wrote (20 Dec 2003): > (3) When the papers are like STV' the winners ought be insensitive to the > presence or absence of the very last preference in one or more papers. > That Schulze method seemed to fail this test. Please give a concrete example. Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
