Smith//IRV: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (Rename category) |
(Do minor cleanup, and add DMTBR disproof.) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Example: |
Example: |
||
{{ballots| |
|||
49 A>B |
|||
49: A>B |
|||
3: B |
|||
48 C>B}} |
|||
B [[pairwise beat|pairwise beats]] A (51 to 49) and C (52 to 48), so B is the only candidate in the [[Smith set]] i.e. is the [[Condorcet winner]]. Therefore, A and C are eliminated, and B, being the only remaining candidate, wins. |
B [[pairwise beat|pairwise beats]] A (51 to 49) and C (52 to 48), so B is the only candidate in the [[Smith set]] i.e. is the [[Condorcet winner]]. Therefore, A and C are eliminated, and B, being the only remaining candidate, wins. |
||
| Line 25: | Line 26: | ||
It is also possible to do '''Condorcet//IRV''': "elect the Condorcet winner if there is one, otherwise elect the IRV winner." |
It is also possible to do '''Condorcet//IRV''': "elect the Condorcet winner if there is one, otherwise elect the IRV winner." |
||
Neither Smith//IRV nor Condorcet//IRV passes [[dominant mutual third burial resistance]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2022-March/003707.html|title=Condorcet-composite method DMTBR disproof|website=Election-methods mailing list archives|date=2022-03-25|last=Munsterhjelm|first=K.}}</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||