More general category needed too?[edit source]
User:Kristomun, I think there ought to be a generalized category above this one for elimination-based methods that don't eliminate another voting method's loser. For example, Instant Pairwise Elimination usually eliminates the Condorcet loser, but can eliminate a different candidate (who may not be in the Smith loser set) when there isn't one. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mathematically, this can be represented by the base method being one that modifies another method so that the Condorcet loser is always last, kind of like "Condorcet,X" in reverse. (If IPE were Smith,X in reverse, i.e. it'd put every Smith loser last, then it would automatically pass Condorcet.) On the other hand, I can see that this could become unwieldy.
- I think if there is to be a more general category, it should be one that consists of all methods that eliminate one or more candidates, then goes onto the next round. Then something like Nanson would also fit, and the category wouldn't just be sequential loser-elimination methods plus IPE. I don't have a strong opinion on whether there should be such an additional category, so if you'd like to add one, go ahead :-) That is, as long as it's general enough to fit another method besides IPE and the sequential loser-elimination ones. Kristomun (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)