Talk:Smith criterion: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 2:
: That's really two questions. The first is "is it possible to create a Smith-efficient method that doesn't rank them in this way?", and the second is "do all publicly known/nonpathological methods rank them in this way?". The answer to the first is yes (e.g. Smith//IRV and then rank the rest of the candidates randomly below the candidates in the Smith set). The former is, I think, "most but not all". The intuitive reason is that if you make a method that embodies Smith-compatible logic, then the path of least resistance for most such simple types of logic is to extend to a full Smith ranking. Schulze is like this, for instance. But composed methods (Smith,Minmax) and methods that glue together sufficiently different logic (BTR-STV, Benham) are not necessarily so. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 19:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
: In general, for questions like "does X imply Y?", a good first strategy is to try to be a maximally malicious genie and try to find an example where X does not imply Y. You only need one counterexample to show that X doesn't imply Y. Proving that something is the case is often much harder than proving that it isn't. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 20:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
| |||