[EM] Majority winner set

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sun Dec 3 13:41:16 PST 2000

>From: Bart Ingles <bartman at netgate.net>
>Reply-To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
>To: "election-methods-list at eskimo.com" <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
>Subject: Re: [EM] Majority winner set
>Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 01:03:29 -0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from [] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id 
>MHotMailBBF366B8007BD821EEDECC7A10300BB10; Sun Dec 03 02:08:56 2000
>Received: (from smartlst at localhost)by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id 
>CAA30543;Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:06:21 -0800
>From election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com Sun Dec 03 02:10:47 2000
>Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:06:21 -0800
>Message-ID: <3A2A0C61.AF44614E at netgate.net>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>References: <LAW-F554CxpAOAkK5Lq00007605 at hotmail.com> 
><3A2A06CE.791AE39D at netgate.net>
>Resent-Message-ID: <"jDZ9j3.0.5T7.TiXAw"@mx1>
>Resent-From: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
>X-Mailing-List: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com> archive/latest/4724
>X-Loop: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
>Precedence: list
>Resent-Sender: election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com
> > >Arrow presumes that every voter always casts his complete opinion of
> > >the candidates on the ballot. He calls this presumption "Unrestricted
> > >Domain Criterion." This criterion says that the election method must
> > >not restrict the opinion that a given voter can cast.
> >
> > That's odd, because in the versions that I've heard of, Arrow
> > stipulates rank balloting, not ratings balloting.
>Ranking or social ordering is by no means a voter's complete opinion,
>even when derived from sincere utilities.  How would you like your bank
>statement to read "you have less money than you had in March, but more
>than you had in October" -- even if the statement was completely

True, but I just meant that the Arrow versions that I've seen stipulate
rank balloting. And if Arrow said to assume that the voter votes
ratings, and we're to mark the method's ballot based on those ratings,
then we're back to the question of what's the uniform rule (same rule
applying to all methods & criteria) by which we're to mark the
method's ballot based on those ratings voted by the voters. Who knows
what the rule for that is supposed to be. Markus won't say.

Mike Ossipoff

Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list