Adam, >"While there is no CW, eliminate the Approval loser" would always elect a >member of the Smith set, but it would not, strictly speaking, be approval >completed Condorcet, since it could elect someone who is neither the >approval winner nor the Condorcet winner.
I'm confused by this distinction from the other two methods. It seems that all of the methods would elect a CW if there is one, none of them necessarily pick the Approval winner, and all restrict themselves to Smith set members. Could you explain differently why this is not "approval-completed Condorcet"? Maybe you are thinking of the "While there is no majority favorite" variant, which can eliminate a CW? But in that case, it seems wrong to say that it would always elect a Smith set member. --- Alex Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Could you comment on the difference between the Smith and Schwartz sets? > I always thought the terms were interchangable. Does the difference > involve pairwise ties? I believe that's right. Smith is the "innermost unbeaten set," and Schwartz is the set of candidates whose members each have a beatpath to every other candidate. I don't believe tying creates a beatpath. Does anyone know what the Landau set (or method) is? I believe it is on Rob LeGrand's webpage, but I can't find anything on it. Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
