Condorcet ranking: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(→Notes) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 12:
* The tertiary Condorcet loser (the new Condorcet loser if the Condorcet loser and secondary Condorcet loser are eliminated), if one exists, is ranked third-to-last.
* etc.
Often the definition of a Condorcet ranking is generalized so that candidates with [[Pairwise counting#Terminology|pairwise ties]] with each other are ranked equally i.e:<blockquote>2 A
2 B
1 C</blockquote>A and B pairwise tie (2 vs. 2), but both beat C (2 vs. 1), so a generalized (or perhaps "weak") Condorcet ranking would be A=B>C.
When there are [[Condorcet cycle|Condorcet cycles]], there won't be a Condorcet ranking (though it may still be possible to fill in certain parts of the [[Order of finish|order of finish]] i.e. if 5 candidates pairwise beat all others, with 3 candidates in a cycle and pairwise beaten by the 5, but otherwise pairwise beating all others, and 2 candidates pairwise beaten by all others except pairwise tied with each other, then the 5 candidates are in the first 5 places of the Condorcet ranking, with the 2 candidates both in 9th place, with the 3 candidates in the cycle guaranteed to be ranked either 6th, 7th, or 8th, depending on which [[Condorcet completion method]] is used). The most direct generalization of the Condorcet ranking to handle Condorcet cycles is the Smith set ranking.
== Smith set ranking ==
| |||