Sequential dropping: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>MarkusSchulze No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Drop the weakest pairwise defeat ''that's in a cycle'' until a candidate is unbeaten.''' |
'''Drop the weakest pairwise defeat ''that's in a cycle'' until a candidate is unbeaten.''' |
||
Differs from minmax only in the "that's in a cycle" proviso. As a result of that proviso, sequential dropping is Smith-efficient. Unlike [[Schulze method|Schulze]], [[ranked pairs]], and [[river]], sequential dropping fails monotonicity and clone independence. |
Differs from [[minmax]] only in the "that's in a cycle" proviso. As a result of that proviso, sequential dropping is Smith-efficient. Unlike [[Schulze method|Schulze]], [[ranked pairs]], and [[river]], sequential dropping fails monotonicity and clone independence. |
||
[[Category:Condorcet |
[[Category:Smith-efficient Condorcet methods]] |
||
[[Category:Defeat-dropping Condorcet methods]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 11:18, 22 April 2020
Drop the weakest pairwise defeat that's in a cycle until a candidate is unbeaten.
Differs from minmax only in the "that's in a cycle" proviso. As a result of that proviso, sequential dropping is Smith-efficient. Unlike Schulze, ranked pairs, and river, sequential dropping fails monotonicity and clone independence.