Category talk:Condorcet-reducible PR methods: Difference between revisions
Category talk:Condorcet-reducible PR methods (view source)
Revision as of 00:36, 20 February 2020
, 4 years agono edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 8:
: Now clearly that's not what we think of as the Condorcet criterion, so CW' hasn't been used much elsewhere. I think we can take that precedent for the Schulze M+1 criterion as well, even though you're right that the criterion, strictly speaking, leaves other options open. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
: 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)
| |||