Talk:Condorcet winner criterion: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (respond to User:RobLa) |
(hmm...looks like I was wrong about the Smith set. btw, where is "weak Condorcet winner" defined?) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:: Doesn't "weak" mean the two are tied? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 06:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC) |
:: Doesn't "weak" mean the two are tied? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 06:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
::: Hmm, I guess you're right. I suppose it's possible to have a three-candidate election where two candidates have a [[Copeland method|Copeland win-loss-tie score]] of 1-0-1, and one candidate has a Copeland score of 0-2-0. The Smith set would have the two candidates with the 1-0-1 Copeland score. I vaguely recall thinking about this someone added this, but not objecting because it intuitively seemed correct. |
|||
::: I admittedly had to look up what a "weak Condorcet winner" meant, which took me back to [[w:Condorcet_method]], which has this definition: |
|||
:::: ''a candidate who beats or ties with every other candidate in a pairwise matchup. There can be more than one weak Condorcet winner.'' |
|||
::: That article doesn't have a citation for that definition, though. What is the best citation for "weak Condorcet method"? -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 23:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||