[EM] Re: Arrow's Theorem flawed?
Paul Kislanko
kislanko at airmail.net
Thu May 12 21:24:23 PDT 2005
Bart Ingles wrote in respone to
> Paul Kislanko wrote:
> >
> > I would go a little farther. Since Arrow's was a PROOF in
> which no one has
> > found a flaw in over 50 years, I would say that anyone who
> has found fault
> > with it is not a "vote theorist."
>
> But Arrow didn't prove that IIA compliance was necessary, or even
> desirable (although the latter was probably assumed). He
> merely proved
> that IIA was incompatible with other criteria.
We weren't talking about that. We were discussing "election theorists found
Arrow's proof flawed".
See why the Wiki-poedists found the statement less than enlightening?
What election theorists have tried to do since Arrow's proof is find a
weaker set of criteria than the ones Arrow used to compare methods, since it
is known that no method can meet Arrow's.
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list