[EM] Arrow's Theorem flawed?
bartman at netgate.net
Thu May 12 21:13:44 PDT 2005
Curt Siffert wrote:
> [...] 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. [...]
I can't speak for the theorists, but that's not how I read Arrow's
theorum. For one thing, he proved that IIA is impossible given the
other criteria listed.
If I had time, I'd read through the monograph again with particular
attention to whether it appeared that Arrow was personally advocating
any of the criteria, or simply probing the relationship between criteria
that had been commonly thought of as important or even mandantory.
For example, saying "criterion x could reasonably be considered
important" is not the same thing as asserting "criterion x is important".
Just a thought.
More information about the Election-Methods