I have now added a proof that the Schulze method
satisfies this criterion. See section 4.12 of
I remember that we discussed the following
criterion at this mailing list. Unfortunately,
I forgot the name of this criterion. Could
someone please tell me the name of this criterion?
Suppose M is the number of candidates.
Suppose there is a k with 2 <= k <= (M-1) such
that candidate A wins every sub-election between
candidate A and (k-1) other candidates. Then
candidate A should also be the overall winner.
�
sorry, but just on the surface this doesn't seem right.
for instance, a run-of-the-mill no-cycle Condorcet case (actually it was IRV and the Condorcet winner did not win) would be the Burlington 2009 election most of us are familiar with. �in that case M=5. �now if you
picked k=3 and chose candidate A to be Kurt Wright (who was the plurality winner and neither the IRV winner nor the CW), there is a set of (k-1) candidates (those would be Smith and Simpson) that Wright beat consistently. �yet he is not the overall winner.
you can go to the Warren Smith
page or i can scarf up the numbers from the defeat matrix again.
how am i reading this wrong?
r b-j � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
�
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
�
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] Name of this Criterion
From: "Markus Schulze" <markus.schulze@alumni.tu-berlin.de>
Date: Sat, April 23, 2016 4:12 pm
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hallo,
>
> I have now added a proof that the Schulze method
> satisfies this criterion. See section 4.12 of
> my paper:
>
> http://m-schulze.9mail.de/schulze1.pdf
>
> Markus Schulze
>
> > Hallo,
> >
> > I remember that we discussed the following
> > criterion at this mailing list. Unfortunately,
> > I forgot the name of this criterion. Could
> > someone please tell me the name of this criterion?
> >
> > Suppose M is the number of candidates.
> >
> > Suppose there is a k with 2 <= k <= (M-1) such
> > that candidate A wins every sub-election between
> > candidate A and (k-1) other candidates. Then
> > candidate A should also be the overall winner.
�
sorry, but just on the surface this doesn't seem right.
for instance, a run-of-the-mill no-cycle Condorcet case (actually it was IRV and the Condorcet winner did not win) would be the Burlington 2009 election most of us are familiar with. �in that case M=5. �now if you
picked k=3 and chose candidate A to be Kurt Wright (who was the plurality winner and neither the IRV winner nor the CW), there is a set of (k-1) candidates (those would be Smith and Simpson) that Wright beat consistently. �yet he is not the overall winner.
you can go to the Warren Smith
page or i can scarf up the numbers from the defeat matrix again.
how am i reading this wrong?
--
r b-j � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
�
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
�
