This example was recently brought to my attention. Consider:
A>C>B>F>D>E
B>C>E>F>D>A
D>B>A>F>E>C
E>A>B>C>F>D
E>D>A>B>C>F
F>C>D>A>B>E
The pairwise matrix is:
0 4 4 2 3 4
2 0 4 3 4 5
2 2 0 4 3 4
4 3 2 0 3 2
3 2 3 3 0 3
2 1 2 4 3 0
Now, with Ranked-Pairs, the only kept-defeat will be B:F.
However, once all of the defeats have been considered, there will be
no kept-defeats for <someone>:E, which allows E to participate in a
tie (according to my computations).
Now, the problem with this appears to be that E also does not have
any pairwise-victories, which would seem to indicate that it should
not have the opportunity to be selected as the victor.
Now, it would seem to me that, in the case of a tie, I should verify
that each option in the tie did have at least one pairwise-victory
and if they did not, eliminate them from the tie.
Would anyone else agree or have I made a mistake in here somewhere?
----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Voting Markus Schulze
- Re: Re: [EM] Condorcet Voting stephane . rouillon
- Re: Re: [EM] Condorcet Voting ericgorr
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Voting Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Voting Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Voting Dave Ketchum
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Voting Eric Gorr
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Voting Alex Small
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Voting Eric Gorr
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Voting Dave Ketchum
- [EM] Tie-breaking for Ranked-Pairs and other meth... Eric Gorr
- [EM] Tie-breaking for Ranked-Pairs and other ... Stephane Rouillon
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Voting Markus Schulze
- [EM] Ties (was Condorcet Voting) Alex Small
