[EM] Markus' Econometrica reference on RB & IIAC

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sat Jan 26 21:16:28 PST 2002

When I asked Markus if he wanted to post a reference to a journal
article that says that RB meets his IIAC, he gave a reference to
an _Econometrica_ article by Pattanaik & Peleg.

According to that article, Markus was incorrect to say that
the information that Random Ballot fails IIAC, as defined by
Markus, would revolutionize the authors' understanding of one
of Arrow's criteria. That's because Pattanaik & Peleg don't call
that criterion IIAC. The criterion that Markus defined as IIAC
is called "Regularity" by Pattanaik & Peleg. They use "IIAC" to name
a different criterion which they refer to as a probabilistic
version of Arrow's IIAC.

But another claim by Markus is correct: Pattanaik & Peleg do say
or imply that RB meets Regularity. And they define it as Markus wrote
"IIAC", which isn't remarkable, since that's probably where Markus got it.

So then, I've posted an example with which RB fails the criterion
that Markus calls IIAC. And we have an article in which Pattanaik &
Peleg say that RB meets that criterion, which they call Regularity.

Markus, I predict that you'll say that RB must pass "IIAC" as you
defined it, because Pattanaik & Peleg say so. This is a good example
of excessive regard for authority, since you haven't been able to
point out anything wrong with my example in which RB fails your

Now, I'll explain to you why Pattanaik & Peleg say that RB passes
Regularity: They assume that people vote in accordance with their
preferences. Here's how they define Regularity:

"Given the profile of individual preferences, if one enlarges the
feasible set of alternatives by adding one or more alternatives, then
the probability of the society's choosing any one of the alternatives
figuring in the original feasible set cannot increase after the
feasible set is enlarged."

The unspoken assumption obviously is that people vote in accordance
with their preferences.

When you copied Reglarity, and then misnamed it, you copied it unaware
of that assumption.

That's forgivable, given your unfamiliarity with Journal articles on
voting systems.

Actually voting in accordance with sincere preferences is a common
assumption in, for instance, definitions of Pareto & CC.

I hope that I've revolutionized Markus' understanding of his "IIAC"
and of a commonly accepted assumption in academic criterion definitions.

You've indicated that you have a notion of "honor", which means not
being mistaken. That might explain the evasions
that you attempt in order to avoid admitting that.

As you & the article litterally word Regularity (your "IIAC"),
RB fails it. Though the authors assume voting in accordance with
sincere preferencs, you don't, you said. I specifically asked you
about that, and you assured me that you make no such assumption
in your "IIAC". And so, RB unquestionably fails your "IIAC".

Mike Ossipoff

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list