Beatpath example 12: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Beatpath example 12 (view source)

Revision as of 21:20, 15 September 2021

321 bytes added , 2 years ago

→‎Winner under different methods of ambiguity resolution: Add MMPO and IRV

VisualWikitext

Casimir

20

edits

Revision as of 18:40, 9 August 2006 (view source) imported>DCary (Create article with examples of beatpaths, etc. with 3 candidates)		Latest revision as of 21:20, 15 September 2021 (view source) Casimir (talk \| contribs) (→‎Winner under different methods of ambiguity resolution: Add MMPO and IRV) Tag: Visual edit
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: This is an example of a [[~~../~~Beatpath#Beatpath_order \| beatpath order]] with 12 candidates. It has been constructed to illustrate a variety of situations that can occur in terms of beatpaths, the beatpath order, and pair-wise wins, losses, and ties. The example purposely has a lot of pair-wise ties and illustrates what is possible, not necessarily what might be typical. This example could occur with the following ranked ballots involving 12 candidates A - L: Line 227: * The Smith set = the set of all candidates. ==Winner under different methods of ambiguity resolution== * Copeland: B * Schulze: B Ranked Pairs: B Borda/Black: B Approval voting/Llull, assuming every ranked candidate is approved: B Minimax(winning votes): H MMPO: E IRV: E * Raynaud (Gross Looser): E and G tie * Plurality: E, H and K tie ==See also== * [[Beatpath]] * [[Beatpath examples 3 \| Examples 3 candidates]] * [[Maximal elements algorithms \| Algorithms to calculate the Schwartz set and Smith set]] * [[Condorcet Criterion \|Condorcet winner]] * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method#Related_terms weak Condorcet winners] * [[Schwartz set]] * [[Smith set]] [[Category:Elections]]