[EM] Does the 'Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion' Imply...

[Ken Johnson]

>Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:44:08 -0800
>Subject: Re: [EM] Does the 'Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion' Imply a 
>From: "James Green-Armytage" <jarmyta at antioch-college.edu>
>...
>	I have to say that I don't think it makes sense for an individual to
>prefer A to B, B to C, and C to A. It's just logically contradictory.
>
>Individual preferences should be assumed to be transitive. 
>
James,
There is no need to ASSUME transitivity. Just adopt a common-sense 
definition of "preference" in terms of some quantifiable attribute such 
as "likeability" (e.g., an individual "prefers" A to B if they like A 
more than B). Then transitivity is an immediate consequence of the 
definition.

>Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:04:15 -0800
>From: Richard Moore <moore3t1 at cox.net>
>
>Forest Simmons wrote:
>
> >Yes, Arrow did use the IIA criterion, and yes, most folks here agree 
> >that it is the criterion that is too strict, and therefore should be 
> >relaxed in one way or another.
>
>One way to interpret Arrow's Theorem is to say "you can't have all of 
>these criteria, so you must give up at least one of them". ...
>  
>
Richard,
An alternative to giving up IIA would be to give up the criterion that 
the voting method must be a rank method.

- Ken