[EM] Another reason for LIIA
Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-elmet at munsterhjelm.no
Fri May 29 14:48:50 PDT 2026
The Guardian 100 Best Novels thread got me thinking about a possible
additional benefit of LIIA (which may seem arbitrary otherwise).
Suppose you have an election with 100 candidates. You want to analyze
some properties of the top five in more detail, which is hard to do with
the full 100. Then if the election method in use passes LIIA, you know
that you can just batch-eliminate the 95 losers and the method's
behavior among those top five will be the same.
Most likely, the Smith set won't be five large, so you can do that with
any ISDA method. But LIIA may be useful in saying that there's never
going to be a situation where this goes wrong: where truncating at the
five best produces a different outcome.
Granted, since Smith sets usually are small and you can get the same
benefit by using an elimination method, it's not a strong case for
wanting LIIA. But even though it's not a strong case for LIIA, it has
some justification. Elimination methods also often have monotonicity
problems or chaotic behavior that LIIA methods don't, which I suppose is
due to LIIA being a more demanding global criterion, so that designing
something to pass it makes it unlikely that you fail monotonicity just
because "the pieces don't fit together", so to speak.
-km
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list