# [EM] RE : Re: Problem solved (for pure ranked ballot)

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd at lomaxdesign.com
Thu Jan 25 20:43:35 PST 2007

```This is getting frustrating.

At 11:11 PM 1/25/2007, Kevin Venzke wrote:
>Hi,
>
>--- Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com> a écrit :
> > At 08:54 PM 1/25/2007, Forest W Simmons wrote:
> > >1 B>C>A
> > >1 B>C>A
> > >1 C>A>B
> > >
> > >Properties 6, 7, and 8 (applied to the clone set {C, A}) make B the
> > >winner with 100 percent probability under our method with this ballot
> > >set.
> >
> > CA being the candidate who is cloned into C and A.
> >
> > B wins in this election and also in the "FB" election shown. ICC is
> > not violated.
>
>Forest is saying that at least one of properties 6, 7, and 8 would be
>violated if B didn't win.

Hello? Anybody home?

Seriously, I wasn't questioning what Forest is
saying. I'm questioning the specific application
of ICC to an FB election. ICC involves comparing
the results of two elections. *Which two
elections?* If I'm correct, Forest is following
the same line as Warren did previously. Forest's
proof is *much* more complex and I'm not sure I
followed it all and I don't have time to do so. I
just looked to see if he was doing the same thing
with regard to ICC, and it seems he is.

However, if Warren was correct in his proof, I'd
guess that Forest also is, at least with regard
to this aspect. So, please, someone, look at my
objection, especially to *Warren's* proof. Nobody
has responded to it yet. The objection is that
there is a clear logical fallacy in Warren's proof.

```