Ranked Pairs: Difference between revisions

Cleaned up Smith compliance proof, and elaborated on what tiebreaker is most commonly associated with RP.
(Cleaned up Smith compliance proof, and elaborated on what tiebreaker is most commonly associated with RP.)
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 226:
== Advantages and disadvantages ==
 
Ranked Pairs is [[Smith-efficient]], because noevery Smith set member canpairwise bebeats beateneverybody by a candidate not inoutside the Smith set. As a result, anyevery candidatedefeat inby thea Smith set willmember notover have their defeats toa non-Smith setcandidate membersis discardedlocked duringbefore theany RPopposite-direction proceduredefeat, so theya can'tnon-Smith becomecandidate thecan Condorcetnever winnerwin.
 
Ranked Pairs passes the [[Independence of Smith-dominated Alternatives]] criterion, because the only cycles for RP to potentially resolve will always be between Smith set members. Because of this, all candidates not in the Smith set can be eliminated before starting the procedure, reducing the number of operations needed to be done to find the winner. In addition, Ranked Pairs, like [[Schulze]], is equivalent to [[Minimax]] when there are 3 or fewer candidates with no pairwise ties between them, so if the Smith set has 3 or fewer candidates in it with no pairwise ties between them, [[Smith//Minimax]] can be run instead to find/demonstrate the RP winner.
Line 232:
While Ranked Pairs behaves similarly to [[Schulze]], Ranked Pairs passes [[local independence of irrelevant alternatives]] whereas Schulze does not. Some authors argue that the Ranked Pairs method is more intuitive and easier to understand than Schulze as well.<ref name="Munger 2023 pp. 434–444">{{cite journal | last=Munger | first=Charles T. | title=The best Condorcet-compatible election method: Ranked Pairs | journal=Constitutional Political Economy | volume=34 | issue=3 | date=2023 | issn=1043-4062 | doi=10.1007/s10602-022-09382-w | pages=434–444}}</ref>
 
One disadvantage of Ranked Pairs is there's no easy way to detect ties for first place, as determining whether there exists a way to break ties between pairwise victories so that a given candidate wins is NP-complete.<ref name="Brill">{{cite journal | last=Brill | first=Markus | last2=Fischer | first2=Felix | title=The Price of Neutrality for the Ranked Pairs Method | journal=Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence | publisher=Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) | volume=26 | issue=1 | date=2012-07-26 | issn=2374-3468 | doi=10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8250 | pages=1299–1305}}</ref>. However, ties can still be broken fairly and efficiently (using some secondary method basedthat ondoesn't thecompromise ballots,Ranked Pairs' properties. The most common such astiebreaker selectingis the[[random candidatevoter withhierarchy]], thea generalization of [[random ballot]]. Cardinal methods like [[Graduated Majority Judgment|highest medianmedians]] can also be used, at the cost of slightly weakening properties like ranked [[clone scoreindependence]]).
 
== Notes ==
1,196

edits