[EM] Re: Arrow's Theorem flawed?

[Paul Kislanko]

Bart Ingles wrote in respone to
> Paul Kislanko wrote:
> > 
> > I would go a little farther. Since Arrow's was a PROOF in 
> which no one has
> > found a flaw in over 50 years, I would say that anyone who 
> has found fault
> > with it is not a "vote theorist." 
> 
> But Arrow didn't prove that IIA compliance was necessary, or even 
> desirable (although the latter was probably assumed).  He 
> merely proved 
> that IIA was incompatible with other criteria.

We weren't talking about that. We were discussing "election theorists found
Arrow's proof flawed".

See why the Wiki-poedists found the statement less than enlightening? 

What election theorists have tried to do since Arrow's proof is find a
weaker set of criteria than the ones Arrow used to compare methods, since it
is known that no method can meet Arrow's.