[EM] questions about IIAC & ICC

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

> Let's say that there are N candidates. Then "Random Candidate"
> simply says that --independently on how the voters vote--
> each candidate is elected with the same probability of 1/N.

> 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.

******

You wrote (16 Jan 2002):
> Markus wrote (16 Jan 2002)
> > Mike 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?
>
> As before, I direct your attention to the message to which you
> are replying. Right after the paragraph that you quoted, I said
> that someone could say that it's pointless to say that I don't agree
> with you because I don't have your definition, but that I said it
> to avoid any misleading implication that I agree with something
> whose accuracy I haven't checked.

What I criticize is that you spend significantly more time
writing that you haven't checked the definitions than it would take
to check the definitions. Please check the definitions and stop
spaming the EM archives with lengthly mails in which you only write
that you haven't checked the definitions! Does it really take so
long to check the definitions? Do you need additional help? Do you
have problems understanding Random Candidate? Do you have problems
understanding Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives?

Markus Schulze