<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpd93a46afyahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I'm not sure if this relates to your question at all, but any method can easily be converted to an LIIA-passing method, without changing the winner. Instead of using the method's "natural" finishing order, declare just the winner initially and then for 2nd place, remove the winner from the process and find the new winner and declare them to be 2nd, and so on.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Going off on a tangent, I've always felt that LIIA has somehow found its way into the "standard list" of election method criteria without any proper scrutiny of its utility. It's not clear what purpose it serves. It sounds good because it has "IIA" in it, but it doesn't really have much, if anything, to do with the IIA criterion. It's certainly not a stepping stone towards it.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I think when I mentioned this before, Kristofer said that if the winner drops out for some reason, then you can just elect 2nd place as the order wouldn't change if you ran the election again without the original winner. But the flipside of this is that after the election, 2nd place might be found to be ineligible for some reason, and there would be some elections where an LIIA-failing method would save you from the embarrassment of the original 3rd placed candidate becoming the new winner.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">In any case, given how easy it is to make a method LIIA compliant, if your favourite method doesn't pass LIIA, it's no barrier to still using a method that elects the same winner (which is the most important thing in a single-winner election), further bringing its relevance into question.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Toby</div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydpbd6cde91yahoo_quoted_8146398031" class="ydpbd6cde91yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Friday, 1 May 2026 at 14:57:20 BST, Gustav Thorzen via Election-Methods <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">Ranked Pairs satisfy Local Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives criterion,<br></div><div dir="ltr">but I got curious if this property is obtained independently of locking order.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">For context, ISDA comes independently of locking order,<br></div><div dir="ltr">but ISDA is implied by LIIA + Majority criterion,<br></div><div dir="ltr">so I got curious if LIIA is what actually is obtained<br></div><div dir="ltr">and ISDA simply followed from it.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I tried to create a proof for a positive result,<br></div><div dir="ltr">but quickly discovered I could not figure out how<br></div><div dir="ltr">to cover scenarios containing multiple matchups<br></div><div dir="ltr">to be locked in at the same time.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Any help would be much appreciated.<br></div><div dir="ltr">Gustav<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">P.S: I have started to suspect I need to fail LIIA<br></div><div dir="ltr">for a MMPO locking order to satisfy all of<br></div><div dir="ltr">AFB+Mono+LN-Harm+MB-ISDA<br></div><div dir="ltr">unless LIIA satisfaction is automatic independently of locking order,<br></div><div dir="ltr">and then figured it was interesting enough of a question on its own.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">----<br></div><div dir="ltr">Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>