[EM] Corrected version of The usable interpretation of Jameson's proposed Strong IIAC

[Michael Ossipoff]

Strong IIAC:
-----------------

Premise:

An election is held. Everyone votes so as to maximize their utility
expectation, based on their utility-valuations of the candidates, and
their estimates or perceptions of any relevant probabilities regarding
how people will vote, or of count-occurrences such as particular
pair-ties.

After the election is counted, and the winner recorded, but before any
results are announced to anyone other than the counters, one of the
candidates, who isn't the winner, is hit and killed by a car. Because
a different candidate-set could cause people to vote differently, a
new election is held.

Again, people vote so as to maximize their expectation, as described
in the first paragraph.

The death of the candidate is known by all to be an accident, and not,
for example, an act by another candidate.

The death of the candidate in no way affects anyone's
 utility-valuations of the candidates, or their estimates or
 perceptions regarding probabilities regarding how people will vote
 or regarding count-occurrences such as particular pair-ties.

...other than the knowledge that that candidate won't be on the
ballot, and therefore can't win or be in a pair-tie, and can't have a
part in any count configuration or occurrence.

A count configuration is a state of the count at some point in the
count. A count occurrence is any intermediate or final result or
determination in the count.


Requirement;

The winner of the 2nd election must be the same as the winner of the
1st election.


[end of Strong IIAC definition]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

If it sounds as if it would be difficult to determine whether a method
meets that criterion, then I remind you that the example-writer is
free to devise _any_ example that complies with the criterion's
premise. The example-writer can choose a simple but extreme example
with particularly extreme or simplified utilities and probability
perceptions.

I suggest that you'll find that no non-probabilistic and
non-dictatorial method can meet Strong IIAC, as defined above.

Mike Ossipoiff