Dear James Green-Armytage,
> > > Am I correct in thinking that minimax chooses E in this
> > > example, ranked pairs chooses D, and river chooses F?
> >
> > > Oops. Minimax chooses D, not E... is that right?
> >
> > MinMax chooses A.
>
> Yes, indeed it does. I'm quite embarrassed. Did I get the
>
>> Am I correct in thinking that minimax chooses E in this
>> example, ranked pairs chooses D, and river chooses F?
>
>> Oops. Minimax chooses D, not E... is that right?
>
>MinMax chooses A.
Yes, indeed it does. I'm quite embarrassed. Did I get the others right, at
least?
my best,
James
El
Dear James Green-Armytage,
> Am I correct in thinking that minimax chooses E in this
> example, ranked pairs chooses D, and river chooses F?
> Oops. Minimax chooses D, not E... is that right?
MinMax chooses A.
Markus Schulze
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
Marcus,
Of course I accept your apology, and thanks for your quick clarification.
In case it isn't obvious to others, I mistakenly thought "DE 19" and
"DE 10" etc. referred to ballots,
intead of pairwise comparisons.
So I (not too cleverly) thought that
"DE 19" is changed to "DE 10"
meant "t
>However, I see the following problem: When someone promotes a
>Condorcet method that violates monotonicity, then he cannot use
>IRV's violation of this criterion as an argument against IRV.
Yes, that is true, but I rarely if ever use monotonicity failure as an
argument against IRV. I fee
Dear Chris,
> On the other hand, what you refer to here is not Mono-raise
> but is instead what Woodall calls "Mono-add-top".
Sorry for the confusion.
With "XY z", I mean that candidate X is the winner of the
pairwise comparison XY and that the strength of the pairwise
defeat XY is z.
So when I
Marcus,
I understand that what is usually meant by "monotonicity" is what
Woodall calls "Mono-raise".
" Mono-raise: a candidate x should not be harmed if x is raised on some
ballots without changing the orders of the other candidates."
On the other hand, what you refer to here is not Mono-
Dear James Green-Armytage,
> Thank you Markus; that's good to know. However, I don't regard
> monotonicity to be an extremely important criterion.
However, I see the following problem: When someone promotes a
Condorcet method that violates monotonicity, then he cannot use
IRV's violation of this
>Dear James Green-Armytage,
>"sequential dropping" (SD) violates monotonicity.
>Example (12 July 2000):
>http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-July/004107.html
Thank you Markus; that's good to know. However, I don't regard
monotonicity to be an extreme
Dear James Green-Armytage,
"sequential dropping" (SD) violates monotonicity.
Example (12 July 2000):
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-July/004107.html
> Act I:
>
>AB 18
>BC 14
>CD 12
>DE 19
>EF 15
>FG 16
>GA 11
>DB 13
>
I'd like to clarify a bit about this method. First, the rule itself:
*Drop the weakest defeat that is in a cycle, until there is an unbeaten
candidate.*
Does that sound right?
Next, I have a question about how this method compares to another
method:
*If there are no pa
Dear Jobst,
you wrote (17 May 2004):
> That seems to be right indeed -- I should have realized this
> myself. At least the winners are identical since (a) whenever
> the defeat under consideration is in the current Schwartz set,
> there is also a beatpath in the other direction, hence the
> defeat
Hi Markus!
> when the beatpath method is being used then the beatpaths
> from the beatpath winner to the other candidates just form
> an arborescence with the beatpath winner as the root. It
> seems to me that "sequential dropping towards a spanning
> tree" (SDST) just finds this arborescence so t
Dear Jobst,
when the beatpath method is being used then the beatpaths
from the beatpath winner to the other candidates just form
an arborescence with the beatpath winner as the root. It
seems to me that "sequential dropping towards a spanning
tree" (SDST) just finds this arborescence so that SDST
Here's another method which chooses an immune option.
SEQUENTIAL DROPPING TOWARDS A SPANNING TREE (SDST):
Start with the set of all defeats and process the defeats by increasing
magnitude. Drop a defeat whenever the remaining set still contains a
spanning tree. The root of the final spanning tree
In Laslier's nice book on tournament solutions I found a
characterization of the Banks set and of Schwartz' "tournament
equilibrium set" by a "contestation relation". The idea behind this
relation is that before replacing an option A by an option defeating A,
one should first choose between all tho
16 matches
Mail list logo
