Talk:Ranked Pairs: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "== Speeding up calculation == I'd like to see if there's a way the calculation can be sped up even further. I think the key is that if we have, for example, a candidate with...") |
(→Any Landau-independent variants?: new section) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I'd like to see if there's a way the calculation can be sped up even further. I think the key is that if we have, for example, a candidate with 1 pairwise defeat and no pairwise ties, and early on in the RP procedure this candidate's only defeat is ignored, then we automatically know they're the winner. So I'd like to suggest the following procedure: calculate the number of pairwise defeats for each candidate, and then run RP until at least one candidate has no defeats. If that candidate has pairwise ties, keep running RP, otherwise that candidate is the winner. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 00:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC) |
I'd like to see if there's a way the calculation can be sped up even further. I think the key is that if we have, for example, a candidate with 1 pairwise defeat and no pairwise ties, and early on in the RP procedure this candidate's only defeat is ignored, then we automatically know they're the winner. So I'd like to suggest the following procedure: calculate the number of pairwise defeats for each candidate, and then run RP until at least one candidate has no defeats. If that candidate has pairwise ties, keep running RP, otherwise that candidate is the winner. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 00:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Any Landau-independent variants? == |
|||
What the title says. Right now, RP seems to be the "best available" Condorcet system (it's a top-shelf method alongside STAR). Can we make it even better? What's the strongest possible independence of (generalized Condorcet) criterion we could get? (Smaller than Smith, Schwartz, etc.) --[[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 19:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:29, 21 February 2024
Speeding up calculation
I'd like to see if there's a way the calculation can be sped up even further. I think the key is that if we have, for example, a candidate with 1 pairwise defeat and no pairwise ties, and early on in the RP procedure this candidate's only defeat is ignored, then we automatically know they're the winner. So I'd like to suggest the following procedure: calculate the number of pairwise defeats for each candidate, and then run RP until at least one candidate has no defeats. If that candidate has pairwise ties, keep running RP, otherwise that candidate is the winner. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Any Landau-independent variants?
What the title says. Right now, RP seems to be the "best available" Condorcet system (it's a top-shelf method alongside STAR). Can we make it even better? What's the strongest possible independence of (generalized Condorcet) criterion we could get? (Smaller than Smith, Schwartz, etc.) --Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)