Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality.

I'd said:

> > Justify IIAC? I've repeatedly said that IIAC doesn't mean

> > anything to me. Its importance derives entirely from the fact

> > that lots of people, including IRVies, keep bringing it up.

> > That's great when they do that, since the only complete IIAC

> > definition that I've heard of says that Approval is better than

> > IRV and that even Plurality is better than IRV. Obviously there

> > are many reasons why those methods are better than IRV, but when

> > the IRVies' own citation of Arrow counts against IRV, that makes

> > IIAC useful. _That's_ my justification of IIAC. Maybe Arrow's

> > own definition of IIAC is different from mine. Maybe it's

> > justified in some way that mine isn't. Fine. I don't care.

>Of course, when you define IIAC in such a manner that IIAC has

>nothing to do with the original intention of this criterion,

>then --unless you can give an additional explanation why your

>IIAC should be desirable

Markus, you're being a fruitcake. I didn't say that IIAC is desirable. I said that it doesn't mean

anything to me. That means too that I don't claim that it should mean anything to you. So

why do you want me to give an explanation for why it should be desirable?

What doeas my definition of IIAC have going for it then? It's the only complete IIAC definition that's

ever been posted on this list.

>- the observation that plurality

>meets your IIAC is quite meaningless.

It's meaningful to anyone who considers Arrow's criteria important. Remember, Markus,

my IIAC definition is the only complete one that's ever been posted on EM. Arrow's criteria are

often brought up. That's the relevance of IIAC.

> The usefulness of your

>"universally accepted" concept

is questionable, when you cannot

>explain why the resulting criteria describe desirable properties.

This is plailn repetition of an argument that I've already answered in my previous message. Are

you taking lessons from Don Davison?

I admit & assert that I cannot explain why IIAC is desirable. My definition isn't. We have no

other complete definition here, and so I can't speak to the desirability of criteria that have never

been defined here.

So, as I said, then, what's questionable is why you think that the fact that I can't explain the desirability

of a criterion that I say is not really desirable has anything to do with the validity of "my" "concept"

that Plurality doesn't collect or use rankings.

Mike Ossipoff

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

Reply via email to