Markus Schulze wrote:
Hallo,
of course, I am leaning towards the Schulze method.
This method is by far the most wide-spread Condorcet
method. It is used by about 50 organizations with
about 100,000 eligible members in total. It has also
become very popular among scientists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
http://books.google.com/books?id=dccBaphP1G4C&pg=PA37
http://books.google.com/books?id=CMLL9sVGLb8C&pg=PA119
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd148646.aspx
Here are the proposed statutory rules:
http://m-schulze.webhop.net/propstat.pdf
Schulze's advantage is that it's actually being used and that it
provides good results (by the Minmax standard). Ranked Pairs's (or
MAM's, rather) is that it's easy to explain.
The question is: which of these qualities are more important, were we to
encourage the use of a Condorcet method in real (governmental) elections?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
