Difference between revisions of "Sequential dropping"

From Electowiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (cat)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''Drop the weakest pairwise defeat ''that's in a cycle'' until a candidate is unbeaten.'''
 
'''Drop the weakest pairwise defeat ''that's in a cycle'' until a candidate is unbeaten.'''
  
Differs from minmax only in the "that's in a cycle" proviso. As a result of that proviso, sequential dropping is Smith-efficient. Unlike [[beatpath]], [[ranked pairs]], and [[river]], sequential dropping fails monotonicity and clone independence.
+
Differs from minmax only in the "that's in a cycle" proviso. As a result of that proviso, sequential dropping is Smith-efficient. Unlike [[Schulze method|Schulze]], [[ranked pairs]], and [[river]], sequential dropping fails monotonicity and clone independence.
  
 
[[Category:Condorcet method]]
 
[[Category:Condorcet method]]

Latest revision as of 18:33, 3 December 2005

Drop the weakest pairwise defeat that's in a cycle until a candidate is unbeaten.

Differs from minmax only in the "that's in a cycle" proviso. As a result of that proviso, sequential dropping is Smith-efficient. Unlike Schulze, ranked pairs, and river, sequential dropping fails monotonicity and clone independence.