[EM] Aim of unfairness suggests denial of an implicitness problem

[Craig Carey]

 >Message 10979
 >
 >From:  Markus Schulze <markus.schulze at a...>
 >Date:  Sat Mar 1, 2003  1:05 am
 >Subject:  Re: Proof Vermont method isn't mopnotonic (Re: [EM] "More
 >      often" (was: IRV and Condorcet operating identically)
 >
 >
 >Dear Craig,
 >
 >you wrote (1 March 2003):
 >> Correction: Mr Schulze was right in saying that an AV-like method
 >> that passes the test of monotonicity and that is defined explicitly
 >> for all numbers candidates, and that need not be optimal, is not known.
 >
 >What is an "AV-like method"? What does "explicitly defined" mean in
 >this context? Could you give a concrete example of a method that is
 >well defined but not "explicitly defined"? What does "optimal" mean
 >in this context?
 >

The words "AV-like" don't mean 'like AV', but instead the monotonicity
is swapped with the IFPP axioms, and the decision is on whether it
is sufficiently ideal.


FPTP  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IFPP <<<<<<<<<>>>>>>> AV



EM members avoiding saying that to solve the method is quite an implicit
problem.

Axioms about equal suffrage lead to constraints on surfaces.

If they accept the first, then numbers have space filled densely with
line segments imposing a test to be passed. At its ends are election
points. Infinitesimal rules imply similar rules about line segments.

If they reject implicitness is a problem then they got a solution.

One solution is to use unfair principles. That sort of seems to be
a need at this list, but there is a real lack of clarity on the
details.



Craig Carey




----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em