Condorcet ranking: Difference between revisions
→Notes
(→Notes) |
|||
Line 379:
This makes it more ambiguous as to how to record the exact margins of some [[Pairwise counting#Terminology|pairwise matchups]] where groups of candidates are involved, as even if all candidates in a group of candidates pairwise beat all candidates not in the group, they may each do so with different margins. One way to do so is to show the minimum % of votes each candidate gets in the head-to-head matchups against all lower/worse Smith set candidates i.e. if A, B and C are in the Smith set, with D in the 2nd Smith set, and C has the smallest-size majority by %, say, 54%, then 54% can be used to indicate the minimum quality of all the 1st Smith set candidates against D.
Once the Smith set ranking is found, a number of [[Smith-efficient]] [[Condorcet methods]]' rankings can be computed from it:
* Several [[:Category:Defeat-dropping Condorcet methods|defeat-dropping Condorcet methods]]' rankings can be computed. For example, [[Schulze]] works by looking for a Schwartz set ranking. Within each Schwartz set, the weakest defeat (as measured using [[defeat strength]]) is turned into a pairwise tie, a smaller Schwartz set is found if possible, and repeat until all remaining candidates pairwise tie. These candidates are sorted to the top of the original Schwartz set, and the process repeated to find the ranking for any other candidates.
*[[Smith//Score]] and [[Smith//Approval]] order the candidates in each Smith set by number of points/approvals. This can be easily done by showing each candidate's points in the cell comparing them to themselves.
*[[Kemeny-Young]]
Theoretical note:
| |||