Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:44:08 -0800James,
Subject: Re: [EM] Does the 'Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion' Imply a From: "James Green-Armytage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
I have to say that I don't think it makes sense for an individual to
prefer A to B, B to C, and C to A. It's just logically contradictory.
Individual preferences should be assumed to be transitive.
There is no need to ASSUME transitivity. Just adopt a common-sense definition of "preference" in terms of some quantifiable attribute such as "likeability" (e.g., an individual "prefers" A to B if they like A more than B). Then transitivity is an immediate consequence of the definition.
Richard,Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:04:15 -0800 From: Richard Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Forest Simmons wrote:
>Yes, Arrow did use the IIA criterion, and yes, most folks here agree >that it is the criterion that is too strict, and therefore should be >relaxed in one way or another.
One way to interpret Arrow's Theorem is to say "you can't have all of these criteria, so you must give up at least one of them". ...
An alternative to giving up IIA would be to give up the criterion that the voting method must be a rank method.
- Ken
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
