[EM] Ranked Pairs Description
eric at ericgorr.net
Sat Dec 27 05:56:02 PST 2003
At 6:09 AM +0000 12/27/03, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>Of course wording that covers that should be included. Maybe it
>could be said in a way that covers all those possibilities in one
>wording, without separate mention of the special case where 2 or
>more tied-defeats indivicuallly don't cycle with old-kept-defeats,
>but do so if boith are kept.
Personally, I think I did cover this in #5. The case of multiple
tied-defeats is covered by:
If two or more defeats are equivalent, those defeats are considered
together with previously kept defeats, if any.
(#4 covered what is considered to be equivalent)
Now, in light of your comments, I think my statement:
If any defeat under consideration is apart of a cycle, it is rejected.
Could be improved by changing it to:
If any defeat under consideration, which has not yet been kept, is apart
of a cycle, it is rejected.
If any defeat under consideration, which has not yet been kept, is not apart
of a cycle, it is kept.
I will probably also turn the word 'cycle' into a link with a more
More information about the Election-Methods