Category talk:Condorcet-reducible PR methods: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "I don't agree with this move, and I'd like to discuss it. I think it's fairly obvious any "____ PR" method must reduce to "___" method in the single-winner case. On top of tha...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I don't agree with this move, and I'd like to discuss it. I think it's fairly obvious any "____ PR" method must reduce to "___" method in the single-winner case. On top of that, I think Schulze's Condorcet criterion for the multiwinner case shouldn't have that name, since technically in the single-winner case Score passes it (the Score winner has more points than any other candidate in pairwise matchups) yet is not a Condorcet method. And I'm sure Schulze wouldn't consider cardinal PR methods to be Condorcet PR methods, despite many of them likely passing his criterion. It seems for the sake of avoiding confusion it's actually Schulze's criterion that ought to be renamed. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 20:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
I don't agree with this move, and I'd like to discuss it. I think it's fairly obvious any "____ PR" method must reduce to "___" method in the single-winner case. On top of that, I think Schulze's Condorcet criterion for the multiwinner case shouldn't have that name, since technically in the single-winner case Score passes it (the Score winner has more points than any other candidate in pairwise matchups) yet is not a Condorcet method. And I'm sure Schulze wouldn't consider cardinal PR methods to be Condorcet PR methods, despite many of them likely passing his criterion. It seems for the sake of avoiding confusion it's actually Schulze's criterion that ought to be renamed. Edit: My idea for resolving this is to make "Condorcet-reducible PR methods" a subcategory of the larger "Condorcet PR methods" category. We can use the "Condorcet PR methods" category to hold all the different subcategories ie. methods which pass Schulze's M+1 criterion, etc. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 20:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 20:24, 19 February 2020
I don't agree with this move, and I'd like to discuss it. I think it's fairly obvious any "____ PR" method must reduce to "___" method in the single-winner case. On top of that, I think Schulze's Condorcet criterion for the multiwinner case shouldn't have that name, since technically in the single-winner case Score passes it (the Score winner has more points than any other candidate in pairwise matchups) yet is not a Condorcet method. And I'm sure Schulze wouldn't consider cardinal PR methods to be Condorcet PR methods, despite many of them likely passing his criterion. It seems for the sake of avoiding confusion it's actually Schulze's criterion that ought to be renamed. Edit: My idea for resolving this is to make "Condorcet-reducible PR methods" a subcategory of the larger "Condorcet PR methods" category. We can use the "Condorcet PR methods" category to hold all the different subcategories ie. methods which pass Schulze's M+1 criterion, etc. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)