Category talk:Condorcet-reducible PR methods: Difference between revisions

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. Edit 2: Here is something that ought to totally disqualify Schulze's criterion from being considered a serious "Condorcet PR" criterion: Bloc Score voting passes it. If I take the top M scoring candidates and eliminate everyone else except them and any one other candidate, the top M scoring candidates are guaranteed to win. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 20:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)