# Talk:Smith criterion

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

## Smith set ranking

Do all Smith-efficient methods produce Smith set rankings of the candidates for their orders of finish? BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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. 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. Kristomun (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

## Smith efficient

Is "Smith efficient" the term of art that y'all use when you're talking about methods in academic settings? It seems like we should at least have a Smith efficient redirect point to this article, since that seems like an efficient way of referring to this criterion (so to speak). -- RobLa (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a somewhat frequent term on EM. See, for instance, this post: [1] Kristomun (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)