<html><DIV>
<P><BR><BR></P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Could you please explain why you believe that there could possibly be
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>someone who might consider the fact that plurality meets your IIAC and
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>IRV violates your IIAC to be meaningful? Or is your argumentation </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>completely arbitrary? </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Let me explain it for you again: IRV advocates often cite Arrow, to try to show that</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>we can't get a good method, so we might as well have IRV. When they do, I point out</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>that by Arrow's outcome criteria, Approval is better than IRV. In other words, by the</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>criteria cited by that IRVie, IRV isn't as good as Approval. By those outcome criteria,</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>in fact, IRV isn't even as good as Plurality.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>You ask why I could possibly believe that anyone would consider that meaningful.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>The person who cites Arrow presumably considers Arrow's criteria meaningful. But</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>don't ask me why. Ok, I'll guess: That person believes that Arrow says we should</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>throw up our hands and give up, and that encourages the IRVie to say "Ok, since we</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>have to give up, we might as well have IRV." _That_ is why the IRVie considers Arrow</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>to be meaningful. That's my best answer to your question.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Now, as for _my_ IIAC, it's meaningful in a discussion of Arrow's criteria because</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>It's the only IIAC available to the discussion. It's the only one that's ever been completely</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>defined on this list, and it's the only one that has been completely defined for whatever</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>audience the IRVie is citing Arrow to.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>You vaguely suggested another IIAC. I suspect that if you ever defined it completely,</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>we'd find that no method can meet it. If no method could meet IIAC, it would be pointless</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>for Arrow's impossibility theorem to mention any other criteria. For that reason it's</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>unlikely that IIAC is defined in the sort of way that you vaguely suggest.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Markus continues:</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>You wrote (14 Dec 2000):
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > So, as I said, then, what's questionable is why you think that the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > fact that I can't explain the desirability of a criterion that I say
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > is not really desirable has anything to do with the validity of "my"
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > "concept" that Plurality doesn't collect or use rankings.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Plurality met your IIAC only when it couldn't be defined on
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>preferential ballots. When plurality is defined on preferential
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>ballots, then plurality violates your IIAC.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>No, Markus, none of us are interested in a criterion-applying system that you can</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>only apply to one method. Because you're unable to tell how your system applies to</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>other methods, it's of no interest how you say it applies to Plualitly. Give a complete</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>definition of your criterion-applying system, with its assumption that all methods collect</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>rankings, and then we can talk about applying it. Until you tell how it applies to other methods</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>, it can't legitimately be used at all.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> >Therefore your </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>"universally accepted" concept that plurality couldn't be defined
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>on preferential ballots</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Let me explain something: "Couldn't" and "is" have different meanings.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I didn't say that there's a universally-accepted concept that Plurality couldn't be defined</P>
<P>in terms of rank ballots. As I & someone else pointed out, you can define anything any</P>
<P>way you want, but when you do, you must understand that your newly-defined Plurality</P>
<P>might not be much like the one that most people have heard of.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>What I said is that it's universally accepted, by everyone except you, that Plurality</P>
<P>doee _not_ collect or use rankings. Like Don, you keep repeating that you can </P>
<P>define Plurality in terms of rankings. But it's really silly if, when you apply criteria, you</P>
<P>say you want to make up a fictitious definition of one of the methods, before applying</P>
<P>criteria to it. "Pluralitly fails your IIAC, after I redefine Plurality." :-)</P>
<P> </P>
<P>You speak of a system that assumes that all methods collect & use rankings, for the</P>
<P>purpose of applying criteria to them, but you've demonstrated that you can't define </P>
<P>your general system. And you've never told me how how you'd apply your system to</P>
<P>Approval, much less given a general rule for your system. Since you can't do that,</P>
<P>you shouldn't waste our time by continuing to talk about defining Pluralilty based on rankings.</P>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>> is a necessary presumption of your </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>argumentation that as plurality met your IIAC and IRV violated
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>your IIAC plurality was better than IRV.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>You want us to change Plurality's definition from the definition that's used in Plurality's</P>
<P>actual implementations. For applying criteria, you want us to change the definition of</P>
<P>one particular method, Pluralilty, before we apply the criteria to it. Or would you </P>
<P>change other methods too? Who knows? Would you assume that other methods, like</P>
<P>Approval, collect & use rankings too? Who knows--you won't tell. If so, how do we</P>
<P>apply your system to Approval? You don't know. Do we use different rules for different</P>
<P>methods, when assuming that they collect & use rankings? Or do you have a uniform</P>
<P>rule for all methods? You apparently don't know. You don't know what you're saying.</P>
<P>You don't know what you're talking about. You continue to waste our time by saying</P>
<P>we should use a criterion-applying assumption that you're unable to define for us.</P>
<P>Do you see the silliness of that?</P>
<P>Until you're ready to define your system, don't waste our time by saying that we should</P>
<P>define Plurality based on rankings.</P>
<P>Mike Ossipoff</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p></html>