Dear Mike, > Let's say that there are N candidates. Then "Random Candidate" > simply says that --independently on how the voters vote-- > each candidate is elected with the same probability of 1/N.
> An election method violates "Independence from Irrelevant > Alternatives" when there are situations where you can > increase the winning probability of a given already running > candidate by introducing an additional candidate. ****** You wrote (18 Jan 2002): > Markus wrote (18 Jan 2002): > > What I criticize is that you spend significantly more time > > writing that you haven't checked the definitions than it would take > > to check the definitions. Please check the definitions and stop > > spaming the EM archives with lengthly mails in which you only write > > that you haven't checked the definitions! Does it really take so > > long to check the definitions? Do you need additional help? Do you > > have problems understanding Random Candidate? Do you have problems > > understanding Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives? > > When I sent that reply that you keep objecting to, it took many times > less time to disclaim agreement with you than it would have taken to > return to the archives and check your definition. Actually I said that > in the original posting that you keep objecting to, but I haven't kept > saying it, unless it was one of the things that you kept missing and > which it was therefore necessary to repeat for you. As I just finished > saying in the message that you're replying to: How long is "so long". > It was much quicker to disclaim agreement with you than to return to > the archives to check the definition. I made it clear that the reason > why I didn't want to imply that I agreed with you was that I didn't > have the IIAC definition conveniently available, at the time that > I wrote. So why are you asking me about Random Candidate? You see, > Markus, this is an example of why I used to call you an ass. I thought > that I'd made it clear to you that, at the time of writing, I didn't > have the IIAC definition conveniently available. It shouldn't be > necessary to repeat that, but apparently, for you it is necessary. > But I'll tell you what I _don't_ understand: Why do you keep posting > that idiotic crap to this mailing list. And how long will you be > allowed to? Please check the definitions and stop spaming the EM archives with lengthly mails in which you only write that you haven't checked the definitions! I want you to remember that you asked me for an example of a method that meets IIAC. Therefore, it can hardly be called "offensive" "blather" or "idiotic crap" when I post Random Candidate as an example and ask you to inspect this example. Why is it impossible for you to appreciate the fact that Random Candidate meets IIAC? Markus Schulze
