the intention of your recent mails isn't clear to me. I want you
to remember that it is Steve who started claiming that you had
an example "showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate
even though no voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which
beat it pairwise." Therefore you should
Dear Mike,
the intention of your recent mails isn't clear to me. I want you
to remember that it is Steve who started claiming that you had
an example "showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate
even though no voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which
beat it pairwise." Therefore you
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
Dear Mike,
you wrote (19 June 2000):
Markus said here that on May 13, on this list, I said that my
"Tideman bad-example" was possible, as written. That seemed
quite unlikely at the time, because it was long before May 13
that someone pointed out to me that Bruce Anderson hadn't
said that
EM list:
Markus said here that on May 13, on this list, I said that my
"Tideman bad-example" was possible, as written. That seemed
quite unlikely at the time, because it was long before May 13
that someone pointed out to me that Bruce Anderson hadn't
said that every pairwise vote table
