Dear Warren, you wrote (27 Jan 2007):
> * Schulze does not say anything explicitly about equalities but some > facts can be deduced because he used "iff" rather than "if." (By > the way, it might be better merely to use "if" because "iff" may > lead to insurmountable problems...). Here are deduced facts: > * iff A=B in in an old vote in the old election, then A=(all B clones) > in the new one. That is a very strong demand by Schulze, and one I > feel should be avoided if we can avoid it. In other words, I think > Schulze's definition is a bad definition because this demand is way > too strong. However, maybe Schulze was forced to do that because > trying to weaken it leads to insurmountable problems. If so I > retract my complaint. > * If A=C in in an old vote in the old election, then A=C in the new > one. (I have no objection to that.) That's exactly what I wanted to say. ********* You wrote (27 Jan 2007): > * I can't decode Schulze's third and last demand; too many subscripts > and superscripts - but perhaps he meant that cloning B leaves > all win probabilities unaltered for the uncloned candidates (and > consequently, the probability of B winning remains the same albeit > split among B's clones). If that is what Schulze meant, then > he definitely made a bad mistake because of problems 1 and 2 up > top. These problems essentially would cause clone-immunity under > Schulze's definition to be a property that simply could never be > satisfied by any reasonable voting method - kind of a > self-contradicting property. The third demand says that, if there is at least one voter w who either strictly prefers candidate A to candidate B or strictly prefers candidate B to candidate A, then cloning the candidate B must not change the win probability of candidate A. Markus Schulze ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
