The votes only flow if A over B has more votes than B over A
say. On first sight this sounds good but introduces a sensitivity in the
method that can completely flip results with a small change of votes,
also leading to possible loss of votes and tactical voting. Why can't
votes simply flow both directions? In my implementation I tried it and
it still led to dominant results in my experiments, but I guess it's
needed for certain properties?
Here is my paper:
http://m-schulze.9mail.de/schulze1.pdf
The presumption that wins are always stronger that losses is
presumption (2.1.2).
Presumption (2.1.2) is needed to prove compliance with the
Schwartz criterion, the Smith criterion, and independence
of Smith-dominated alternatives.
Presumption (2.1.2) is not needed to prove transitivity,
resolvability, Pareto, monotonicity, reversal symmetry,
or independence of clones.
Markus Schulze
Hallo,
> The votes only flow if A over B has more votes than B over A
> say. On first sight this sounds good but introduces a sensitivity in the
> method that can completely flip results with a small change of votes,
> also leading to possible loss of votes and tactical voting. Why can't
> votes simply flow both directions? In my implementation I tried it and
> it still led to dominant results in my experiments, but I guess it's
> needed for certain properties?
Here is my paper:
http://m-schulze.9mail.de/schulze1.pdf
The presumption that wins are always stronger that losses is
presumption (2.1.2).
Presumption (2.1.2) is needed to prove compliance with the
Schwartz criterion, the Smith criterion, and independence
of Smith-dominated alternatives.
Presumption (2.1.2) is not needed to prove transitivity,
resolvability, Pareto, monotonicity, reversal symmetry,
or independence of clones.
Markus Schulze
