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

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Fri Jan 11 06:17:27 PST 2008


--- daniel radetsky <dradetsky at gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Jan 10, 2008 7:46 PM, Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> > Plenty of incompatibilities have been proven at least with rank ballot
> > methods.
> Well, there you go.
> > I doubt there's good reason to be optimistic about getting around
> > many of these incompatibilities by changing the ballot type.
> I think you're out to lunch. Cardinal ballot methods get around Arrow and
> Gibbard, which had been interpreted as meaning "No voting method is
> fair."
> If that's not a good reason to be optimistic, I don't know what could be.

I don't see these as reason to be optimistic because in practical terms,
Range and Approval are neither independent of irrelevant alternatives
(candidates' presence in the election will affect strategy) nor
strategy-free (for obvious reasons).

People that interpret Arrow to simply mean "no voting method is fair"
probably don't really understand it.

Kevin Venzke

Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list