[EM] Re: Arrow's Theorem flawed?

[Araucaria Araucana]

Curt Siffert <siffert <at> museworld.com> writes:
> 
> 
> I recently posted this addendum to the Arrow's Theorem page on 
> wikipedia:  It was immediately deleted for "bias".
> 
> "The theorem is criticized by many vote theorists, however, for 
> depending on flawed requirements. [...] It is the final (IIAC) 
> criterion that is most controversial. Some vote theorists believe there 
> are scenarios of voting behavior where "failing" the IIAC is considered 
> rational behavior by a voting society. One such example is where one 
> candidate's supporters are far more loyal than another's, and the 
> introduction of a third candidate would split the support of the third 
> candidate. If failing IIAC is not always a "flaw", then the voting 
> methods that fail only this criterion would not necessarily be 
> considered flawed. In other words, some vote theorists believe Arrow's 
> theorem improperly asserts that passing the IIAC is a requirement to be 
> considered a satisfactory voting method. This would render follow-up 
> theorems, such as the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, flawed as well."
> 
> Was I out in left field for writing this?  I was under the impression 
> that many vote theorists agreed with this characterization.  

Just a thought, but stating "many vote theorists" without providing
supporting links to referreed articles might have led to the bias decision.

I'm not saying that your argument is like those supporting Intelligent
Design or denying Global Warming, but perhaps as a result of the furor
on those other topics, the wikipedia maintainers are a little sensitive
to unsubstantiated claims.

-- Q