Talk:Schulze method

Schulze method is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 4, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

MarkusSchulze (talk · contribs) / Schulze method This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (User devised the method that is the subject of this article, assuming compliance with WP:REALNAME.)

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

"Condorcet method/wiki/Schulze method" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Condorcet method/wiki/Schulze method. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 02:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives

Since LIIA is one of the few criteria where Schulze and ranked pairs differ, should the article give an example where Schulze fails it or link to an external reference? WildGardener (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this example, the Schulze ranking is C > D > B > A. However, when candidate C is removed, then the Schulze ranking of the remaining candidates is D > A > B.

I had added this example in 2009 (diff). However, this example was removed by Daveagp in 2011 (diff). I didn't reinsert this example because I didn't want to be accused of starting an edit war. Markus Schulze 07:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background! I didn't realize there was past history on this already. WildGardener (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler example

The 5-candidate pentagram example probably scares some people off. ;)

Maybe we could try simpler examples? 4 candidates is enough to show how Schulze differs from Minimax, without cluttering everything up with too many arrows (6 arrows total, and you can display them without intersections, vs. 10 arrows for a 5-candidate race). –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 17:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]