> Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:20:53 +0200 > From: "Markus Schulze" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [EM] Herve Moulin's proof not really a proof > Message-ID: > <d76091f684180377bc65b7dc26eafe75.squir...@mailbox.alumni.tu-berlin.de> > > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > Dear Nicholas, > > just tell me who wins in the mentioned 7 situations and > I will tell you where your method violates the participation > criterion or the Condorcet criterion: > > http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-February/019497.html > > Markus Schulze
Main example: A>D>B>C Case 1: A>D>B>C Case 2: D>B>A>C Case 3: B>C>D>A Case 4: A>B>D>C Case 4a: C>A>B>D Case 4b: B>C>A>D Only Condorcet applies. I updated the paper description, adding "flawed" and "trying to". One oddity: When reviewing the reshuffle after case 4a and 4b, I noticed a positive trend in order reassignment: 4a: original order | new votes' order | new order A | A | C +2-1 B | C | A -1 D | B | B +1 C | D | D +1 net: +4-2 4b: original order | new votes' order | new order A | C | B -1 B | B | C +2 D | A | A +2 C | D | D +1 net: +5-1 Given my luck, it is probably pointless, Nicholas ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
