Sequential dropping: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>MarkusSchulze No edit summary |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (Category:Condorcet method → Category:Condorcet methods) |
||
| 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 |
[[Category:Condorcet methods]] |
||
Revision as of 04:16, 2 September 2018
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.