[EM] Center for Range Voting Formed

[Rob Lanphier]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 12:42 -0500, Paul Kislanko wrote:
> Rob, please lose the invective and the misleading statements:

invective?

> "Your tactic a very similar tactic to one used by many Condorcet
> advocates which I also object to.  Condorcet fails the "Independence
> from Irrelevant Alternatives" criterion (IIAC), made famous by Kenneth
> Arrow in his Nobel prize winning theorem.  Many Condorcet advocates have
> tried to dance around this issue by redefining IIAC to be "Local IIAC",
> and pointing out that some Condorcet methods pass "Local IIAC", /before/
> confessing that they fail IIAC as defined by Arrow."
> 
> Well, Arrow's Nobel Prize-winning theorem was that EVERY method MUST fail
> one of his four criteria. So Condorcet fails IIAC? Everybody knows it must
> fail one or another. 

No, they don't.  Everyone who knows Arrow's theorem does.  Not everyone
knows Arrow's theorem, though.

> If the argument is that IIAC is more important than the other 3 criteria,
> please list the criteria that your favorite method (whatever it is) fails to
> satisfy, in the interest of your post's concern about other folks' failures
> to disclose everything.

Ummm....I'm a longtime Condorcet advocate.  Google "Condorcet's method"
and see what shows up at the top of the search results.

Rob