Random Ballot fails IIAC

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

In reply to my explanation to Markus of why Random Ballot fails
IIAC, as defined by him, Markus said:

Whoa, cowboy. I suggest that you should post your "proof" that
Random Ballot violates IIAC to a scientific journal. Your post
would be a revolution for the understanding of Arrow's Theorem ;-)

I reply:

Well, at least it has revolutionized _your_ understand of one
of Arrow's criteria.

I have no idea, nor do I care, whether or not scientific journals
define IIAC as you do. But, if they do, then they'd be unlikely to
say that Random Ballot meets IIAC, as you define it. If you'd like
to tell me a journal reference for an article that defines IIAC as
you do, and says that Random Ballot passes it, then feel free to do so.

Is your paragraph that I quoted above supposed to be an argument
that Random Ballot passes IIAC as you define it? If you think it
does, then you need to say what you think is wrong with my example
that shows Random Ballot failing your IIAC. You haven't done that.

By the way, my example wasn't complete. It should also specify that
none of the people who initially voted for that lesser-evil candidate
change that vote when the new candidate is added. (None of those voters
consider the new candidate their favorite).

Markus continues:

You wrote (20 Jan 2002):
>Some define CC in terms of actual votes, with the result that
>Plurality passes, and so, to keep Plurality from passing, they
>say that the criterion, by their definition, applies only to rank
>methods. That greatly reduces the meaningfulness and usefulness
>of CC, and it's a shabby contrivance to avoid an undesired result.

Nope! This doesn't reduce the meaningfulness and usefulness,
since these people simultaneously presume that the voters always
cast all preferences even when the used method (e.g. plurality)
doesn't use all preferences.

I reply:

"These people" simultaneously presume that voters cast all preferences
even when the used method doesn't allow the casting of all preferences?
"These people" sound a lot like you, Markus.

We've been all over the subject of that assumption of yours. Wasn't it 
around
September of 2000? It was all said at that time, and so there's no
need to re-discuss it now.

Mike Ossipoff


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx