On Mar 10, 2004, at 4:41 PM, Philippe Errembault wrote:
The biggest problem I see is, who gets to define the rules for what
gets decided at which level? If the authority for that is too
dispersed, you get a logjam. If too centralized, you risk devaluing
certain levels which would seemingly
The biggest problem I see is, who gets to define the rules for what
gets decided at which level? If the authority for that is too
dispersed, you get a logjam. If too centralized, you risk devaluing
certain levels which would seemingly defeat the whole purpose of the
arrangement.
Yes, ok.
Ken,
--- Ken Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Arrow's IIA criterion may not be realistic or meaningful, but I believe
CR does satisfy the criterion.
I agree with you. But if CR can't meet IIA in a meaningful, practical sense,
I don't see the argument in favor of CR over ranked methods.
Kevin Venzke wrote:
But if CR can't meet IIA in a meaningful, practical sense,
I don't see the argument in favor of CR over ranked methods.
The deeper points to consider are that CR isn't the only rating method,
and ratings aren't the only alternative to rankings.
Forest Simmons outlined
h... Now that I re-read the text, I realise that your problem
about decision
taking and collapsing alternatives, probably came from here:
Actually, it was along the lines of 'forcing linear' decisions, by
analogy with the way that quantum states evolve smoothly over time
until a
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 00:41:56 +0100 (CET)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ken,
--- Ken Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a crit:
My impression was that Arrow stipulated several
basic criteria that any "reasonable" social choice system should
satisfy, with
Hi Philippe,
Thanks for your thought-provoking reply. I get the impression you
live in a slightly different world than I do, so I doubt we'll ever
achieve a full understanding, but I wanted to touch on a few salient
points.
This is the good ol' classical way of viewing human being, but it
- Original Message -
From: Ernest Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Philippe Errembault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Arrow's axioms an alternative to elections
Hi Philippe,
Thanks for your thought-provoking reply. I get
Hallo,
to demonstrate that a given election method violates a given
criterion it is sufficient to find a single example where this
election method violates this criterion. When in this very
special example each voter casts a complete ranking of all
candidates then this does not mean that you have
Hi Philippe,
On Mar 5, 2004, at 11:03 PM, Philippe Errembault wrote:
My point is that if you want to rank multi-dimensional information,
you will have to project your space to a one-dimensional space. This
will be done using a function that, especially for human beings, will
depends on your
Hello Ernie, (please forget my previous mail/ I forgot to redirect it to the list, and
I forgot to end one paragraph)
My point is that if you want to rank multi-dimensional information,
you will have to project your space to a one-dimensional space. This
will be done using a function that,
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:27:06 +0100 (CET)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arrow's axioms could well be justifiable, but his proof doesn't provide
the justification. There may be good reasons why CR should be rejected
as a viable election method, but
Ken,
--- Ken Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
This is like saying There may be good reasons why Random Ballot should be
rejected as a viable election method, but Arrow's premises don't elucidate
those reasons because if the theorem were generalized to encompass dictatorship
methods, its
-
From: Ken Johnson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:34 PM
Subject: [EM] Arrow's axioms
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:27:06 +0100 (CET)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arrow's axioms could well be justifiable, but his proof doesn't provide
the justification
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
On Mar 5, 2004, at 5:45 PM, Philippe Errembault wrote:
Arrow's axioms do NOT apply to real world, since he wants to make
ranked results from ranked individual choices, while strict ranking of
preferences is incompatible with human nature.
Hi
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Ken Johnson wrote:
snip
Kevin,
It isn't evident. It is reasonable to stipulate non-dictatorship
axiomatically because this principle is non-controversial and nobody is
championing dictatorship as a viable election method. On the other hand,
if the objective of
Hi Ernest,
I hope we understand each other's. Since English is not my mother tongue, I could pass
over some misunderstanding without realising
it. I will try to be clearer.
My point is that if you want to rank multi-dimensional information, you will have to
project your space to a
: Philippe Errembault [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Arrow's axioms
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
On Mar 5, 2004, at 5:45 PM, Philippe Errembault wrote:
Arrow's axioms do NOT apply to real world, since he wants to make
ranked
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:38:59 +0100 (CET)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I should have been clearer. You said that if the theorem were generalized
to encompass cardinal methods, its conclusion would be that rank methods cannot
satisfy the axioms whereas CR can. This
I see hope in what Phillippe writes below. Perhps what I wrote in 1998
will encourge more effort:
---
Something is needed to strengthen by the people. An alternative method
of representation is offered for thought:
* Everyone retains
20 matches
Mail list logo
