Category talk:Condorcet-reducible PR methods: Difference between revisions
Category talk:Condorcet-reducible PR methods (view source)
Revision as of 08:13, 23 April 2020
, 4 years agono edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 10:
: As for the second edit, that's correct. Even if you go with the implication of the single-winner Condorcet criterion, Schulze's multi-winner criterion may fail to imply PR. Bloc Ranked Pairs can be shown to pass it using similar logic as you gave, since Ranked Pairs satisfies LIIA. I was reading "Condorcet PR methods" as "PR methods that are also Condorcet", not "methods that are also Condorcet PR". (E.g. by analogy, if we had a category for "Candidate-monotone PR methods", those would be methods that are both PR and satisfy the candidate monotonicity criterion given in the Expanding Approvals paper.) [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 00:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
:: I have made the "Condorcet PR" category more prominent than this one. I think the current situation is a good compromise between our views: Condorcet PR gets to be the main thing people click on, but the only real content in it will be "Condorcet-reducible PR methods", so people can click on that for further information. To be honest, I'd prefer to erase the Condorcet-reducible category and write its description in the Condorcet PR category description, because I don't think anyone will get confused so long as that clear distinction is made on the page itself. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 08:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
| |||