On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Alex Small wrote: > MIKE OSSIPOFF said: > > > > Of course that depends on how one defines IIAC. By the simple way that > > I define it, Approval & CR comply. But people have told me that they > > believe that IIAC means something other than what I say it > > means. But no one who has told me that has supplied a complete & > > precise definition of what he thinks IIAC means. > > > I ran across a paper (can't remember the journal, but it was recent) by > a mathematician at Northwestern. He defined IIAC to account for > strategy changes: If a candidate is deleted, and voters change their > strategies to account for that, the outcome should be unchanged unless > the deleted candidate was the original winner. > > Using the maximum-utility strategy causes Approval to flunk this > criterion. If you vote for all candidates whom you find superior to an > expected utility, deleting a candidate changes the expected utility of > the race, which causes you to change strategies, which can change the > outcome. > > I wasn't terribly impressed. First, this definition of IIAC isn't all > that useful (any election method flunks it, as far as I can tell).
Any method that satisfies majority rule when restricted to two candidates fails this version of the IIAC. Forest ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
