Hi, It seems to me all Warren is saying is that a more practical definition of meaning would be a practical one. Arrow doesn't care about whether the definition is practical, and as you'd then expect it doesn't happen to be all that practical.
The Arrow/Tideman view doesn't even care what the election method is. With the minimal assumption of "top = good" you can aggregate the data on claimed relative preferences. When you have data that can't be interpreted even across two ballots (beyond "they chose to vote like this"), and it is proposed to use that data to pick the winner, that feels unpleasant. I'd be the first to say that every election method is basically just a game. But if it comes in a box with plastic pieces and a spinner, the electorate may not be willing to try it. The will of the people, and democratic legitimacy, is serious business. Everybody's right, basically. I'd note though that I've never seen a simulation or estimation of utility that attempted to incorporate any factor other than how happy people were with the winner. So even if we agree with the primacy of "BR" as an EM criterion, we don't really know what this advises us to do. Kevin Venzke ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
