Paul Kislanko wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Maskin's argumentation doesn't work because
of the following reason: Whether an election
method is good or bad depends on which criteria
it satisfies.
----
Now, if "good" and "bad" are defined by which criteria methods satisfy, it
seems to me that having introduced "judgement" we need "judges" to define
the "goodness" of each criterion. And if there are more than 2 "judges" to
decide the "goodness" of more than two criteria, there is no unambiguous way
to consolidate the opinions of the "judges."
I think Maskin's "arguent" is actually a really old one - if there's a CW
nobody really has a complaint (though there are pathological cases where the
CW is disliked by a majority of the voters...) and if there's not a CW use
Borda (or Bucklin or ...) considering only the smallest Smith Set.
Condorcet//Borda isn't Smith, though. As I pointed out, if we like
Condorcet, why not also like Smith; and if we like Smith, why not also
like Landau, etc?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
