[EM] Arrow's axioms

[Ken Johnson]

>Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:27:06 +0100 (CET)
>From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?= <stepjak at yahoo.fr>
>  
>
>>Arrow's axioms could well be justifiable, but his proof doesn't provide 
>>the justification. There may be good reasons why CR should be rejected 
>>as a viable election method, but Arrow's premises don't elucidate those 
>>reasons because if the theorem were generalized to encompass cardinal 
>>methods, its conclusion would be that rank methods cannot satisfy the 
>>axioms whereas CR can.
>>    
>>
>
>This is like saying "There may be good reasons why Random Ballot should be
>rejected as a viable election method, but Arrow's premises don't elucidate
>those reasons because if the theorem were generalized to encompass dictatorship
>methods, its conclusion would be that non-dictatorial methods cannot satisfy
>the axioms whereas Random Ballot can."
>
>I hope it's evident why this is a strange way of speaking.
>
>Kevin Venzke
>  
>

Kevin,

It isn't evident. It is reasonable to stipulate non-dictatorship 
axiomatically because this principle is non-controversial and nobody is 
championing dictatorship as a viable election method. On the other hand, 
if the objective of elections is to maximize "social utility", then CR 
probably represents the simplest and most natural way to measure (or at 
least define) social utility, and it should not be excluded from 
consideration axiomatically.

Ken Johnson

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20040305/408181ba/attachment-0001.htm>