[EM] Center for Range Voting Formed

[Paul Kislanko]

Apologies to Rob. From the reading of what he wrote, it appeared he was
attacking folks who supported Condorcet methods. Rob says I misunderstood
what he wrote, so I apologize. But I STRONGLY urge advocates to write more
clearly, because no matter how I parse what Rob said, it comes out as an
attack against Condorcet and Condorcet advocates.

FWIW I am not an advocate of any method, just interested in understanding
all of them. It's really hard, because people use undefined acronymns and
write vauguely.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> ] On Behalf Of Rob Lanphier
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:59 PM
> To: Paul Kislanko
> Cc: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com; 'Warren Smith'
> Subject: RE: [EM] Center for Range Voting Formed
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>