Dear Richard Fobes, you wrote (2 May 2010):
> Once again Markus Schulze is trying to discredit > the Condorcet-Kemeny method. If I really wanted to discredit this method, then I would mention ... ... that this method violates independence of clones. ... that this method has a prohibitive runtime so that it is illusory that VoteFair representation ranking could ever be used e.g. to fill 7 seats out of 30 candidates. ... that, although this method has been proposed more than 30 years ago, it has never been used by a larger organization. ... that many of the claims in your book are ridiculous; for example, your claim that this method was strategyproof and satisfied independence of irrelevant alternatives. ********* You wrote (2 May 2010): > This is ironic because "his" method -- which he > calls the Schulze method, and which would more > meaningfully be called the Condorcet-Schulze method > -- produces the same results as the Condorcet-Kemeny > method in most cases. I call my method "Schulze method" and not "Condorcet- Schulze method", because I consider the Condorcet criterion to be only one criterion among many criteria. ********* I wrote (29 April 2010): > Does the San Francisco Bay Area Curling Club still > use the Kemeny-Young method? If not, why did it > abolish the Kemeny-Young method? You wrote (2 May 2010): > This club continues to use VoteFair ranking, a subset > of which is the Condorcet-Kemeny method. In 2009, the announcement said: > We will be using the VoteFair system. In this system, > you rank all the candidates in order of preference and > the most preferred candidates will get the office. You > will rank *all* the candidates in order of preference. In 2010, the announcement said: > The two nominees with the most votes will hold office > for two years, the nominee with the third highest level > of votes will hold office for one year. Markus Schulze ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info