Bart Ingles wrote in respone to > Paul Kislanko wrote: > > > > I would go a little farther. Since Arrow's was a PROOF in > which no one has > > found a flaw in over 50 years, I would say that anyone who > has found fault > > with it is not a "vote theorist." > > But Arrow didn't prove that IIA compliance was necessary, or even > desirable (although the latter was probably assumed). He > merely proved > that IIA was incompatible with other criteria.
We weren't talking about that. We were discussing "election theorists found Arrow's proof flawed". See why the Wiki-poedists found the statement less than enlightening? What election theorists have tried to do since Arrow's proof is find a weaker set of criteria than the ones Arrow used to compare methods, since it is known that no method can meet Arrow's. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
