[EM] Approval, Pareto, & ICC

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

In many or most cases, there's some vaguness about Pareto's definition. Is 
it about preference or voting? If it's about preference, then no method 
meets it, or at least it isn't complete till someone adds stipulation about 
how people vote. If Pareto is about voting, then it says that a candidate 
shouldn't win if another candidate is voted over him/her by everyone. No, 
they don't say it that way, and so I'm just trying to guess what they might 
mean.

And if they do say "voted over", then it would be necessary to supply a 
definition of that too. Sometimes the academics don't seem to have their act 
together very well. I'd supply my definition.

Anyway, if Pareto is about voting, then of course Approval passes. I've read 
in academic publications that Plurality, Borda, IRV, Copeland, etc. meet 
Pareto. (Copeland is or was usually the only pairwise count method mentioned 
in academic articles, though occasionally Condorcet (meaning PC) or Dodgson 
is mentioned). Sequential Pairwise, the familiar parliamentary procedure,  
is mentioned as the method that notably doesn't meet Pareto. So, most 
likely, for most authors at least, Pareto is intended to be about voting, 
though vaguely defined.

As for Independence from Clones, Approval meets a version of that that's 
often quoted. Approval doesn't meet preference ICC, the version that I use.

Would Approval meet the wild and whacky rankings-assumed version of ICC? 
Probably not. More later about the assumption that all methods allow 
rankings on their ballot.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/