[EM] questions about IIAC & ICC
markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de
Wed Jan 16 01:19:09 PST 2002
you wrote (16 Jan 2002):
> Markus wrote (16 Jan 2002):
> > Mike (15 Jan 2002):
> > > I'm not agreeing yet that RC passes IIAC, because I haven't
> > > rechecked and printed-out the definition yet, but maybe it
> > > does.
> > When Mike cannot see that under "Random Candidate" the
> > probability that a given candidate X is elected can only
> > decrease when additional candidates are nominated, then
> > I cannot help him.
> Take a look at my paragraph that you quoted above. It was
> right in front of your face. I'd said I wasn't agreeing with
> you _because I hadn't rechecked & printed-out the definition._
> Whether the probability that a given candidate X is elected can
> only decrease when additional candidates are nominated doesn't
> mean anything with respect to compliance with IIAC unless
> that's what IIAC is about.
Then instead of writing that you haven't checked the definition,
why don't you check the definition? Or do you believe that already
the fact that you haven't checked the definition has such an
importance that you should tell it to everyone? Does it really
take so long for you to check the definition?
Again, IIAC says:
> An election method violates "Independence from Irrelevant
> Alternatives" when there are situations where you can
> increase the winning probability of a given already running
> candidate by introducing an additional candidate.
More information about the Election-Methods