Talk:Minimax Condorcet method

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 Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2011 discussion of rename

Shouldn't the article's title be changed to "Minimax (Election method)"? The term "Minimax Condorcet" makes no sense and (according to Google) doesn't occur elsewhere. Frappyjohn (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 critique

The mathematical formula given in the intro is not understandable; functions are used that have not been defined to the readers. If someone could find a complete description of the mathematical formula and put it in, that would really improve this page. David Nemati (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a case-by-case choice of winning criteria?

There should be a detailed discussion on the pros and cons of each winning criteria, and when they should be used.

Why would the Condorcet winner ever not be the winner-winner?

Personally, I think that candidates with negative worst pairwise defeat margins should always win, if they exist. In the "Example with Condorcet winner that is not elected winner" section, it makes no sense to choose C over A, because A won every single pairwise matchup, including the one against C! There is simply no philosophical case for choosing A, it would basically be "this person should win because when he lost, he didn't lose that badly, even though the person who beat him didn't lose at all". Hypothetically if there was a tie between 2 candidates and they beat everyone else, so the worst pairwise defeat margin was exactly 0% for both, it would make sense to choose the one with the least worst pairwise opposition.

What winning criteria should be used if there is no Condorcet winner?

In that case, worst pairwise defeat (winning votes) is an inherently worse criteria than worst pairwise defeat (margins), because the latter tells you exactly how badly the other candidate lost. In that example, A had a worst pairwise defeat of 35% which seems low, but it was still a relative landslide because that individual beat him by 5%. RedrickSchu (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]