In reply to my explanation to Markus of why Random Ballot fails IIAC, as defined by him, Markus said:
Whoa, cowboy. I suggest that you should post your "proof" that Random Ballot violates IIAC to a scientific journal. Your post would be a revolution for the understanding of Arrow's Theorem ;-) I reply: Well, at least it has revolutionized _your_ understand of one of Arrow's criteria. I have no idea, nor do I care, whether or not scientific journals define IIAC as you do. But, if they do, then they'd be unlikely to say that Random Ballot meets IIAC, as you define it. If you'd like to tell me a journal reference for an article that defines IIAC as you do, and says that Random Ballot passes it, then feel free to do so. Is your paragraph that I quoted above supposed to be an argument that Random Ballot passes IIAC as you define it? If you think it does, then you need to say what you think is wrong with my example that shows Random Ballot failing your IIAC. You haven't done that. By the way, my example wasn't complete. It should also specify that none of the people who initially voted for that lesser-evil candidate change that vote when the new candidate is added. (None of those voters consider the new candidate their favorite). Markus continues: You wrote (20 Jan 2002): >Some define CC in terms of actual votes, with the result that >Plurality passes, and so, to keep Plurality from passing, they >say that the criterion, by their definition, applies only to rank >methods. That greatly reduces the meaningfulness and usefulness >of CC, and it's a shabby contrivance to avoid an undesired result. Nope! This doesn't reduce the meaningfulness and usefulness, since these people simultaneously presume that the voters always cast all preferences even when the used method (e.g. plurality) doesn't use all preferences. I reply: "These people" simultaneously presume that voters cast all preferences even when the used method doesn't allow the casting of all preferences? "These people" sound a lot like you, Markus. We've been all over the subject of that assumption of yours. Wasn't it around September of 2000? It was all said at that time, and so there's no need to re-discuss it now. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
