<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=257401807-11012008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Arrow's Nobel Prize was awarded because his impossibility
proof was general. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=257401807-11012008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=257401807-11012008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I do not know what is meant by "Cardinal methods get around
Arrow" - the only way to "get around" that proof is to decide that violation of
one or more of the axioms is "ok." </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=257401807-11012008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=257401807-11012008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>How do "cardinal methods" avoid the impossibility
proof?</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B>
election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>Juho<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, January 11, 2008 1:16 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Election
Methods Mailing List<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Election-Methods] Social preference
ordering (was: Whymonotonicity?)<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Jan 11, 2008, at 6:04 , daniel radetsky wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">On Jan 10, 2008 7:46 PM, Kevin Venzke <<A
href="mailto:stepjak@yahoo.fr">stepjak@yahoo.fr</A>> wrote:</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">I
doubt there's good reason to be optimistic about getting around<BR>many of
these incompatibilities by changing the ballot type. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>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.</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><BR
class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV></DIV>I think Arrow initially sudied social
preference ordering. Loops (e.g. A>B, B>C, C>A) in the social
preference ordering are independent of the voting methods, and they exist in the
background and may impact voting behaviour in all methods.
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>I don't know exactly what your targets are and how good (/"perfect") the
method should be but although cardinal methods have some interesting
characteristics my guess is that they will not offer any clear shortcuts.<BR>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>Juho</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>