[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:
>--- 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.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list