[EM] Re: The issue of comments about Arrow's impossibility theorem

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sat May 14 22:10:13 PDT 2005

Paul said:

Mike, if you haven't read the paper, don't complain that you don't know what
Arrow meant by IIAC.

I reply:

...but when did I complain because I don't know what Arrow meant by IIAC? I 
couldn't care less what Arrow meant by IIAC.

Paul continues:

If you think IIAC is unimportant, fine. Then quit with all the "strategy"
complications, since those are heavily dependent upon the degree to which a
method complies or doesn't comply with IIAC.

I reply:

Is that why Plurality passes IIAC (by its only definition that's been posted 
to EM) and the best Condorcet versions fail IIAC? :-)

And how many are the "degree[s] to which a method complies or doesn't comply 
with IIAC"?

Paul wants to say that IIAC is _the_ strategy criterion. We apparently must 
take that on Paul's authority.

And, when Paul says that IIAC is the important strategy criterion, exactly 
what IIAC definition is he referring toi? My votes-only one that I've 
recently posted? If not, then how does Paul define IIAC?
And yes, even without reading Arrow's paper, I do suggest that you should 
tell us what you mean by IIAC, if you're going to claim that it's ain 
important strategy definition.

If Paul will forgive me, my strategy concerns are about the need to bury 
favorites, and other drastic preference-concealing strategies needed by 
majorities, under conditions wherin it can be guaranteed, by better methods, 
that they won't need such strategies.

Mike Ossipoff

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list