Condorcet winner vs Smith set vs pairwise winner(s)
-
I want to get my terminology correct and clarify a couple things, so hoping someone can help me out.
First, what do you call the singular candidate that has more pairwise wins than any other, but is not necessarily the Condorcet winner? For instance if there's six candidates total, and one of those candidates has four pairwise wins, and all the rest have fewer than four pairwise wins, what do you call the candidate with four? (they'd actually have to have five pairwise wins to be the Condorcet winner) (Is this the Copeland winner?)
Similarly, what do you call the set of all candidates that have the most pairwise wins? (i.e. they tie for most pairwise wins) I understand that most of the time this is going to be the Smith set, but apparently sometimes there is a distinction between the two.
I searched around Electowiki and Wikipedia and Googled everything I could think of and couldn’t get clarification on this.
-
The candidate with the most pairwise wins would be the Copeland winner, but I don't think it's necessarily used as a general term in the same way as the way "Condorcet winner" is. They are the candidate who would win in a Copeland election.
I'm not sure I've heard a term used for the set that ties for most pairwise wins. Though it could be called the Copeland set and I think most people would probably understand the concept.
-
Thanks, makes sense, that is what I thought regarding the term Copeland winner.
I admit I find it odd that, given how important Condorcet and the emphasis on pairwise wins is in voting theory, that this simple concept (candidates with the most pairwise wins, whether singular or multiple candidates) doesn't have a commonly used term or terms to refer to it.
