[EM] Cycles in sincere individual preferences
atarr at purdue.edu
Mon Sep 6 15:50:03 PDT 2004
At 10:34 PM 9/6/2004 +0200, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
>Just a summary of my opinions (in case anyone misunderstood):
>1. Incomplete or even individual prefs are no problem for most methods.
Most Condorcet methods, yes. They are pretty meaningless for IRV, Borda,
and most other non-pairwise methods.
>2. Whether some set of individual prefs is rational or logical doesn't
I disagree. Social choice methods are (again, excepting unanimity) about
disagreement and ruling that some opinions matter more than others. I
would choose to implicitly disregard self-contradictory preferences.
>3. We should not restrict freedom of preference expression without need.
Aside from my opinion about the value of cyclic preferences, they
needlessly complicate the ballot. Yes, I know they can be but one
option. It still complicates the ballot.
>4. Methods based on pairwise comparisons should ask the voter for:
>pairwise comparisons, of course.
Only if you think this gives more information than a simple ranked order,
which is only true if you think that nontransitive individual preferences
>5. Expressing that some pairwise preference is more important than some
>other pairwise preference could be allowed as long it does not become
I'm not sure what you mean here.
>6. I did not understand a word of what Craig wrote, perhaps because I'm
>not a native speaker of the english language.
Trust me, that wasn't the problem.
More information about the Election-Methods