Each voter rank-orders all of the candidates on their ballot. If at any time one candidate is ranked first (among non-eliminated candidates) by an absolute majority of the voters, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate ranked last (again among non-eliminated candidates) by the largest number of (or a plurality of) voters is eliminated.
The first condition, “if at any time one candidate is ranked first by an absolute majority”, is different from ED—I only included the second clause. I’m guessing Coomb’s method is probably an improvement in some sense, although I haven’t thought through any details yet.
But wikipedia also says my variant has been discussed in the literature:
In some sources, the elimination proceeds regardless of whether any candidate is ranked first by a majority of voters, and the last candidate to be eliminated is the winner.[2] This variant of the method can result in a different winner than the former one (unlike in instant-runoff voting, where checking to see if any candidate is ranked first by a majority of voters is only a shortcut that does not affect the outcome).
Is ED different to the Coombs method?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coombs%27_method
Nice find!
From the wikipedia article:
The first condition, “if at any time one candidate is ranked first by an absolute majority”, is different from ED—I only included the second clause. I’m guessing Coomb’s method is probably an improvement in some sense, although I haven’t thought through any details yet.
But wikipedia also says my variant has been discussed in the literature:
Thanks for the pointer!