I wrote and Markus responded, > > Shwartz Sequential Dropping is better. The only > > differences as far as I can tell are that > > 1) You only deal with the Smith Set > > 2) You consider number of voters in favor of the defeat, not the margin > > of the defeat. > >I don't understand this paragraph. Do you want to say that the difference >between RP and SSD is that the latter one meets the Smith criterion
When I say, "you only deal with the Smith Set," I merely mean that SSD throws out all candidates outside the Smith set before it starts dropping defeats. I am not directly attempting to imply anything about the Smith criterion. It seems obvious, however, that this will force a member of the Smith set to win. I'm not sure if this is true of Ranked Pairs. >and >measures the strength of a pairwise defeat by the number of voters in favor? Yes, that's what I meant. >Could you post those examples where RP and not SSD produces those >"seemingly undesirable results"? I can't find those old messages in my archives, but here's a very simple example: 49: Bush 24: Gore 27: Nader,Gore Bush beats Nader 49-27 Nader beats Gore 27-24 Gore beats Bush 51-49 With ranked pairs, the Gore-Bush defeat is overturned, and Bush wins, despite a true majority preferring Gore to Bush. In SSD the Nader-Gore defeat gets overturned, and Gore wins, which seems more intuitive to me. -Adam
