Markus and Rob have pointed out to me that my example doesn't work.
> 1 ballot of each permutation of A B C D
> 2 A B C D
> 2 C D A B
> 2 D A B C
Here's an example that does work (I think).
2 B A C D
2 C D A B
2 D A B C
---
Blake Cretney
Dear Blake,
you wrote (23 Apr 2001):
> The question was asked of Mike, but I'll respond anyway. He must
> be refering to an example like this:
>
> A>B 40
> B>C 39
> C>A 38
> A ties with D
> D>B 5
> D>C 4
In this example, D is the unique Schwartz winner. Ranked Pairs is
indecisive between A and
Dear Markus,
> You wrote (19 Apr 2001):
> > RP can choose outside the initial Schwartz set. SSD & Cloneproof
SSD
> > will never do that. Choosing outside the initial Schwartz set
isn't
> > serious. I'm not aware of it causing a strategy problem, but that
> > doesn't mean I'm saying it doesn't. B
Dear Mike,
you wrote (18 Apr 2001):
> Markus wrote (18 Apr 2001):
> > Steve Eppley never used the term "BeatpathWinner" in this
> > context. He always used the term "Schulze method." Therefore it
> > seems that you have mixed up the Schulze method and the Beatpath
> > Criterion Method and that so
Dear Mike,
you wrote (19 Apr 2001):
> What are RP's advantages? It meets Steve's output ranking
> consistency criteria. If that's the most important thing to
> someone then they'd prefer RP to SSD or Cloneproof SSD.
Not all of Steve Eppley's criteria are "output ranking
consistency criteria." So
RP is nearly as good as Cloneproof SSD. In public elections it
is nearly as good as ordinary SSD.
Here are some differences:
RP can choose outside the initial Schwartz set. SSD & Cloneproof SSD
will never do that. Choosing outside the initial Schwartz set isn't
serious. I'm not aware of it caus
