[EM] Arrow's Theorem flawed?

Bart Ingles 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 mailing list