Sequential dropping: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 04:16, 2 September 2018 (view source) Psephomancy (talk \| contribs) (Category:Condorcet method → Category:Condorcet methods) ← Older edit		Revision as of 06:04, 22 February 2020 (view source) BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Tag: Visual edit: Switched Newer edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:
	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 methods]]		[[Category:Smith-efficient Condorcet methods]]