Composite method: Difference between revisions
Added references to first use of the composite methods' terminology.
(Added some monotonicity implications.) |
(Added references to first use of the composite methods' terminology.) |
||
Line 13:
The [[first past the post]] ordering is L>R>C>A=B and the Smith set is {A, B, C}. Thus the method Smith,Plurality would return the ordering C>A=B>L>R.
This composition was first defined by Woodall in 2003.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Woodall|first=D. R.|date=2003|title=Properties of single-winner preferential election rules II: examples and problems (draft)}}</ref>
==Slash==
The composition M1//M2 denotes taking the result of method M1, eliminating everybody but the winners according to that method, and then giving the outcome of M2 on the reduced ballot set. For instance, the method that first eliminates every candidate not in the [[Smith set]], then runs IRV on the remaining candidates, is [[Smith//IRV]].
This composition was first defined on the [[EM list]] by Bruce Anderson in 1996.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1996-April/065516.html|title=Reply on EM to Mike's Reply on ER|website=Election-methods mailing list archives|date=1996-04-03|last=Anderson|first=B.}}</ref>
==Criterion compliances==
Line 31 ⟶ 35:
{{stub}}
==References==
<references />
[[Category:Electoral_systems]]
| |||