Dear Mike,
actually, you wrote in your 13 May 2000 mail
(http://www.egroups.com/message/election-methods-list/5388):
> Steve didn't say that Beatpath Winner chose a Pareto inferior
> candidate or violated Pareto. He merely said that it chose
> a candidate whom no voter preferred to the Tideman winner, and
> which was pairwise-beaten by the Tideman winner.
>
> That doesn't require a Pareto violation. For instance, say
> that a few voters rank the Tideman winner over Beatpath Winner's
> winner, and that the rest of the voters are indifferent between
> those two. The situation that Steve described exists, without
> a violation of Pareto.
>
> Actually, though Pareto is usually described in terms of
> everyone preferring one candidate to another, I believe that
> what's really meant by the Pareto criterion is that a candidate
> shouldn't win if another candidate is _voted_ over him by
> all the voters. If that criterion were really about sincere
> preferences, then lots more methods would fail the criterion.
> UUCC, however, is about sincere preferences.
In short: You wrote that Steve wrote that the Schulze method
"chose a candidate whom no voter preferred to the Tideman winner,
and which was pairwise-beaten by the Tideman winner." And you
wrote that "the situation that Steve described exists." I never
claimed that you wrote something different in your 13 May 2000
mail.
Therefore I see absolutely no justification for your claim that
I misquoted you.
Markus Schulze
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
