Arrow and Gibbard-Satterthwaite

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Steve,

you wrote:
>IIAC ("Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives" criterion)
>says, among other things, that the removal of a non-winning
>candidate from the voters' ballots must NEVER change the
>winner.  
>
>To Ken Arrow, all non-winning candidates are "irrelevant".  
>Your own definition of "relevance" may not be as strict as
>Arrow's.

I thought, I used Arrow's definition of "relevance"
in my e-mail "Arrow, Gibbard, and Satterthwaite". Could
you tell me, where my definition differs from Arrow's
definition?

You wrote:
>Bruce Anderson, an EM subscriber, wrote that the
>thrust of his research involves relaxing the definition of
>"relevance" so it includes all the alternatives in the Smith set
>(in other words, all the circularly tied alternatives) and
>investigating which methods satisfy this "relaxed IIAC" as well 
>as all the rest of Arrow's criteria.

I couldn't find Anderson's investigations in the election
methods list. Could you post it to me or to the election
methods list? I am very interested, whether Anderson found
other methods, that fail to meet Pareto.

Markus Schulze (schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de)