Dear Mike, you claimed that you proposed "the wv Condorcet class of methods" (25 Feb 2005). David Gamble asked (25 Feb 2005) whether you really proposed "winning votes" (wv) methods first. You replied (26 Feb 2005): "I'd proposed the wv Condorcet methods, and wv Condorcet methods were popular, long before you [= Markus Schulze] joined EM, and long before you defined Schulze's method [in 1997]."
I replied that it cannot be said that you proposed wv methods in general because you didn't propose a general concept. It might be true that e.g. Schulze(wv), Tideman(wv), and Heitzig(wv) happen to satisfy some of those criteria you considered important in 1997; but they also violate some of these criteria; for example they violate your "Generalized Majority Criterion" (GMC). Now you claim (11 March 2005) that there was no "justification for your [= Markus'] claim that my criteria apply only to MinMax". You claim that the fact that Schulze(wv), Tideman(wv), and Heitzig(wv) violate GMC was not a feasible argument because you don't promote GMC anymore. You write (16 March 2005): "GMC is not a criterion of mine. GMC was a criterion of mine. But it hasn't been for a long time. As I've said, I no longer use GMC." However, to decide whether you really proposed the wv Condorcet class of methods in/before 1997, we have to look at those concepts you used at that time and not at those concepts you use today. The fact that you don't use GMC today, has nothing to do with the question which concepts you used in/before 1997. I suggest that you shouldn't always change the subject line. I have the impression that your habit always to change the subject line is one of those reasons why you usually forget the topic of a discussion very quickly and begin to spam mailing lists with endless repetitions of off-topic mails. Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
