Hallo,

When the Schulze winner is identical to the MinMax winner,
while the MAM winner differs from the MinMax winner, then
this necessarily means that the worst pairwise defeat of
the Schulze winner is weaker than the worst pairwise defeat
of the MAM winner. That's why those findings are relevant
when we compare MAM and Schulze.

Markus Schulze

(Replying farther down)

On Oct 5, 2016 9:44 PM, "Markus Schulze" markus.schulze@alumni.tu-berlin.de
wrote:

As I said, you're referring to a defeat that's contradicted & overruled by
being weakest in a cycle with defeats that aren't overruled in that way.

Anyway, ask people whether they prefer the Schulze winner to the MAM
winner. Usually (4 to 1 or 5 to 1?) they'll say that they prefer the MAM
winner.

That's rather compelling.

Michael Ossipoff

Speaking of problem-disclosure:

Any proposal of MAM or Schulze should always include the following
disclosure:

If, with you and some similar voters ranking Compromise alone at top (over
Favorite), thereby Compromise wins, then:

If you'd instead moved Favorite up to top, along with Compromise, that
could change the winner from Compromise to Worst.

Do you think that you could enact MAM or Schulze, with that disclosure?

Would it be ethical to conceal that information when proposing those
methods?

Michael Ossipoff
On Oct 5, 2016 9:44 PM, "Markus Schulze" markus.schulze@alumni.tu-berlin.de
wrote: