Sequential dropping: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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:Smith-efficient Condorcet methods]] |
[[Category:Smith-efficient Condorcet methods]] |
||
[[Category:Defeat-dropping Condorcet methods]] |
|||