Dear Mike, you wrote (23 Dec 2003):
> Maybe when Markus names those methods as being the same as BeatpathWinner, > he'd like to take credit for all of them (assuming for the moment that he > really did invent BeatpathWinner). Yes he did describe CSSD after proposing > BeatpathWinner, pointing out the equivalence. But I doubt that he proposed > SSD. SSD was a colaboration from discussion with Steve Eppley. Neither of us > knew of Markus's CSSD description at that time. Later, in a discussion in > which a clone-independent method was desired, and in which someone else was > proposing BeatpathWinner, a method not as obviously justified as SSD, I > changed SSD to make it clone-independent--Cloneproof SSD (CSSD). Later I > found out that Markus had described CSSD. In the voting recommendation to the DEBIAN project, you can find a very interesting comment to this question. Norman Petry wrote (6 Feb 2001): > Regardless of what names we use when referring to these methods during our > committee discussions, I think it is appropriate that if one of these > variants is recommended to Debian that it be named SCHULZE'S METHOD. This > is because: > > 1. Schulze, version 1: The 'Beat-Or-Tie-path' method was first proposed by > Markus Schulze on Sat, 4 Oct 1997 (see EM Archives, "Re: Condorect sub-cycle > rule"). Unfortunately, eGroups has not archived this message, but it can be > found at Rob's site, in this text file (but mistakenly referred to there as > "Tideman's Method"): http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em/archive/em.97q4 > > 2. Schulze, version 2: The 'Schwartz Sequential Dropping' (SSD) method was > first proposed by Markus Schulze on Mon, 10 Aug 1998. His description can > be found here: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/673 > > 3. Schulze, version 3: The 'Cloneproof SSD' method was first proposed by > Markus Schulze on Sat, 14 Nov 1998. See: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/2291 As noted > above, Markus' version of 'Cloneproof SSD' uses a slightly different (and > imo better) tiebreaker than Mike's version, but the two methods are > otherwise identical. > > 4. Beatpath Winner: This was not specifically proposed by Markus Schulze, > but it is equivalent in terms of results to Cloneproof SSD. It is the same > as 'Beat-or-tie-path' winner, except that pairties in the matrix are zeroed > out before paths are computed, so that tied values cannot be part of the > paths used to determine the winner. > > Since Markus was the originator of the first three of these methods, and > usually refers to all of them as "Schulze's Method", it seems appropriate to > name them as he has done. Another interesting question is: In so far as you considered neither independence of clones nor reversal symmetry to be important, why did you propose an election method that is more complicated than Schwartz//MinMax(VotesAgainst)? Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
