Dear Andrew Myers, you wrote (18 July 2005):
> I've noticed that in practice MAM -- and the deterministic variant > I developed for CIVS -- both seem to be much more stable than > Schulze/beatpath winner, though I don't have a good argument for > why this is. It seems that it's easier to upend the ordering by > creating long, inobvious beatpaths than it is in MAM. Are you talking about stability when determining the winner or when determining the ranking? I have understood your 19 Sep 2004 mail in such a manner that you are talking about stability when determining the ranking. You wrote: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-September/013909.html > I find that the result seems to be more stable than beatpath winner > in the sense that individual voters don't perturb the output order > as much. Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info