Dear Mike,
you wrote (27 Jun 2000):
> I've checked and D does seem to win in your example, with SD.
> I haven't checked Schulze in that example yet. I'd thought that
> I had a demonstration that SD would do like Schulze when the
> pair-defeat table has no equal entries. At this time I don't know
> whether or not your statement is correct, and so I can't claim
> that it isn't correct.
Via beat paths the pairwise defeats look as follows:
A:B=64:66
A:C=64:65
A:D=60:58
A:E=61:58
A:F=63:58
B:C=64:65
B:D=60:58
B:E=61:58
B:F=63:58
C:D=60:58
C:E=61:58
C:F=63:58
D:E=61:60
D:F=62:60
E:F=60:61
Therefore candidate C wins all pairwise defeats via beat paths.
******
You wrote (27 Jun 2000):
> But even if it is, SD still meets BC, and hasn't been shown to
> have any kind of problem when there are no identical entries in
> the pair-defeat table. Unless it does, it's still a very good
> candidate for a public proposal.
Suppose that candidate D is substituted with a set of clones
with D1 > D2 > D3 > D1. Suppose that all the pairwise defeats
between two clones are larger than 65:35. Then the SD winner of
my yesterday's example is changed from candidate D to candidate C.
Therefore SD violates independence from clones.
******
You wrote (27 Jun 2000):
> But of course till it's demonstrated that SD doesn't have a
> many-voters problem, I'll only propose Tideman instead.
Does that mean that you don't promote SSD any more? What is
the reason for that change in your opinion?
Markus Schulze
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
