[EM] Random Ballot fails IIAC

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (24 Jan 2002):
> 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. 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.

It is very strange that you invite me to tell you a reference for an
article and simultaneously you write that you don't care how scientific
journals define IIAC. However, here is a reference:

   Prasanta K. Pattanaik, Bezalel Peleg, "Distribution of Power Under
   Stochastic Social Choice Rules," Econometrica, vol. 54, p. 909-921,
   1986.

Feel free to read this article.

******

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.

Who is "some"? Could you please tell me a reference for an article
(1) that says that plurality passes Condorcet or (2) that says that
Condorcet may be applied only to rank methods to keed plurality from
passing?

Markus Schulze