[Election-Methods] Why monotonicity? (was: Smith +mono-add-top?)

daniel radetsky dradetsky at gmail.com
Thu Jan 10 19:01:18 PST 2008

On Jan 10, 2008 2:05 AM, James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

> to put correct this defect we have no option but to sacrifice something
> else, e.g. "later no harm".

I'm not sure later-no-harm is a good thing in the first place.

That would be nice, but all the evidence to date shows that it is
> impossible.  No-one has yet devised a voting system that incorporates all of
> the desirable features.

The evidence does not show that this is impossible. If nobody has designed a
voting system that incorporates all the desirable features this could mean:

A. It is impossible to do so.
B. We haven't figured out a way to do so.
C. Our criteria are misguided.

Remember: most innovations in human history were not available for most of
human history.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20080110/85b3fb3b/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list