<html><DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<P>I'd said:</P>
<P>> > Justify IIAC? I've repeatedly said that IIAC doesn't mean </P>
<DIV></DIV>> > anything to me. Its importance derives entirely from the fact
<DIV></DIV>> > that lots of people, including IRVies, keep bringing it up.
<DIV></DIV>> > That's great when they do that, since the only complete IIAC
<DIV></DIV>> > definition that I've heard of says that Approval is better than
<DIV></DIV>> > IRV and that even Plurality is better than IRV. Obviously there
<DIV></DIV>> > are many reasons why those methods are better than IRV, but when
<DIV></DIV>> > the IRVies' own citation of Arrow counts against IRV, that makes
<DIV></DIV>> > IIAC useful. _That's_ my justification of IIAC. Maybe Arrow's
<DIV></DIV>> > own definition of IIAC is different from mine. Maybe it's
<DIV></DIV>> > justified in some way that mine isn't. Fine. I don't care.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Of course, when you define IIAC in such a manner that IIAC has
<DIV></DIV>>nothing to do with the original intention of this criterion,
<DIV></DIV>>then --unless you can give an additional explanation why your
<P>>IIAC should be desirable</P>
<P>Markus, you're being a fruitcake. I didn't say that IIAC is desirable. I said that it doesn't mean</P>
<P>anything to me. That means too that I don't claim that it should mean anything to you. So</P>
<P>why do you want me to give an explanation for why it should be desirable?</P>
<P> </P>
<P>What doeas my definition of IIAC have going for it then? It's the only complete IIAC definition that's</P>
<P>ever been posted on this list.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>>- the observation that plurality </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>meets your IIAC is quite meaningless.</P>
<P>It's meaningful to anyone who considers Arrow's criteria important. Remember, Markus,</P>
<P>my IIAC definition is the only complete one that's ever been posted on EM. Arrow's criteria are</P>
<P>often brought up. That's the relevance of IIAC.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>> The usefulness of your </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>"universally accepted" concept</P>
<P> is questionable, when you cannot </P>
<DIV></DIV>>explain why the resulting criteria describe desirable properties.
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is plailn repetition of an argument that I've already answered in my previous message. Are</DIV>
<DIV>you taking lessons from Don Davison?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I admit & assert that I cannot explain why IIAC is desirable. My definition isn't. We have no</DIV>
<DIV>other complete definition here, and so I can't speak to the desirability of criteria that have never</DIV>
<DIV>been defined here.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, as I said, then, what's questionable is why you think that the fact that I can't explain the desirability</DIV>
<DIV>of a criterion that I say is not really desirable has anything to do with the validity of "my" "concept"</DIV>
<DIV>that Plurality doesn't collect or use rankings.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mike Ossipoff</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p></html>