On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 12:42 -0500, Paul Kislanko wrote: > Rob, please lose the invective and the misleading statements:
invective? > "Your tactic a very similar tactic to one used by many Condorcet > advocates which I also object to. Condorcet fails the "Independence > from Irrelevant Alternatives" criterion (IIAC), made famous by Kenneth > Arrow in his Nobel prize winning theorem. Many Condorcet advocates have > tried to dance around this issue by redefining IIAC to be "Local IIAC", > and pointing out that some Condorcet methods pass "Local IIAC", /before/ > confessing that they fail IIAC as defined by Arrow." > > Well, Arrow's Nobel Prize-winning theorem was that EVERY method MUST fail > one of his four criteria. So Condorcet fails IIAC? Everybody knows it must > fail one or another. No, they don't. Everyone who knows Arrow's theorem does. Not everyone knows Arrow's theorem, though. > If the argument is that IIAC is more important than the other 3 criteria, > please list the criteria that your favorite method (whatever it is) fails to > satisfy, in the interest of your post's concern about other folks' failures > to disclose everything. Ummm....I'm a longtime Condorcet advocate. Google "Condorcet's method" and see what shows up at the top of the search results. Rob ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
