FAQ

[John De Lasaux]

Why is the title of this piece "FAQ" when all it is is a dissertation by
someone named Mike?

Where is the FAQ?

John D
=================
At 10:12 PM 1/3/97 PST, election-methods-list at eskimo.com wrote:
>I agree that Arrow's criteria & his impossibility statement should
>be n the FAQ, because there's always someone who will bring it up,
>claiming that Arrow showed that it's completely hopeless. It never
>fails. So certainly we must cover that in the FAQ.
>
>But I wouldn't put it first. Of course I'm partial to my pitch, but
>it seems to me that we should start by asking what it is that we
>want from a single-winner method.  Then we'd say "OK, & here's
>how to do that." Don helped clarify the position when he pointed
>out that Condorcet's method can almost be regarded as a thinly
>disguised copying of the standards that we consider important.
>
>Of course a method can't really be the same thing as a standard,
>because a method has to be a lot more specific than a standard.
>But it's obvious when a method seems to written around or based
>on certain standards, all but incorporating them in its 
>definition.
>
>So, thanks to Don's suggestion, we could say "If you like those
>standards, then why not write them into a method? Here's such
>a method..."
>
>Maybe that sounds promotional, but I don't think an article
>can really be objective & helpful at the same time. My www
>article tried to be objective, but I wouldn't do it that way
>now; I'd make it advocatory, because that's really the only
>way to present the information directly, without lots of wasted
>words.
>
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>
>
John De Lasaux

Phoenix, AZ