[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>When Moulin wrote about reinforcement and participation
>in his book, he called them "very strong arguments" for
>using a scoring rule (such as plurality rule and Borda)
>instead of a Condorcet-consistent rule. In my webpages,
>I argue that they are very weak argument
Hi,
James G-A wrote:
> Steve E writes:
>> I assume James is using the name "consistency" to
>> refer to the criterion also called "reinforcement."
>
> Um, yeah. I meant that if one group of ballots,
> processed by the given method, gives A as the winner,
> and another group of ballots gives
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I assume James is using the name "consistency" to refer
>to the criterion also called "reinforcement."
Um, yeah. I meant that if one group of ballots, processed by the given
method, gives A as the winner, and another group of ballots gives A as the
winner too, then if
Hi,
James G-A requested:
> Looking for help again! Does anyone know where I can
> find the earliest proof that Condorcet efficiency is
> incompatible with consistency?
I assume James is using the name "consistency" to refer
to the criterion also called "reinforcement." There are
so many
Hi folks,
Looking for help again! Does anyone know where I can find the earliest
proof that Condorcet efficiency is incompatible with consistency?
Basically, I'm just looking for the most appropriate source to cite when
mentioning the impossibility.
I'm also not sure who to cite f
