[EM] "unavoidable change" not enough?

Forest Simmons fsimmons at pcc.edu
Wed Jan 2 13:39:28 PST 2002

On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote in part:

> What is the date or the message number for Forest's & Richard's latest 
> definition
> of Monotonicity?

We never did post to the list on this because we couldn't resolve the
difficulties in a way that was satisfactory to either (much less both) of

Our attempts were either too strong (eliminating all Condorcet methods,
for example) or, too ambiguous, or lacking in generality. 

We were striving to be so general that we would never have to mention
ranking, rating, or order ... just the results of the election method
(i.e. the method being tested for monotonicity) when restricted to various
combinations of ballots.  Such a definition would work on any method
whatsoever, based on any possible ballot type, even those types that have
not yet been envisioned due to our lack of imagination and ingenuity. 

We haven't given up, but it's on the back burner for now.

When we have time, we should summerize some of the blind alleys and
partial results so as to prevent unnecessary duplication of effort.
Perhaps some of the list members could then carry it beyond the point
where we left off.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list