[EM] Name of this Criterion

[robert bristow-johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] Name of this Criterion

From: "Markus Schulze" <markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de>

Date: Sat, April 23, 2016 4:12 pm

To: election-methods at 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 at audioimagination.com
 
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160423/4c32f43a/attachment.htm>