I wrote:
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2001-August/006566.html
> Your response in that post, that Richard's proposed implementation didn't
> capture the higher expressivity of dyadic ballots,
Sorry, Richard Moore was responding to Roy Johnson's proposal
Forest Simmons wrote:
> As near as I know, the only deterministic method that satisfies
> neutrality, anonymity, and the strong FBC (instrumentally as opposed to
> merely expressively) is a method that uses additional information beyond
> the rankings. [It allows voters to augment their ranked bal
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Steve Eppley wrote:
>
> I consider Arrow's axioms justifiable. In the decades
> leading up to Arrow's theorem, economists and social
> scientists had struggled in vain to find a good way to
> compare different individuals' utility differences (known
> in the literature as the
Ken Johnson wrote:
-snip-
> > From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...
> >> But why did Arrow stipulate #1? (rank method)
-snip-
> Based on the preceding discussions, I infer the following:
> (1) Arrow's theorem is based on an unjustified and
> (according to the theorem's conclusion) ind
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:36:33 -0800
From: Richard Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
Theorems are facts, not judgements, so it is incorrect to state that
Arrow proved anything about a value judgement.
However, the theorem is based on a set of (unproved) premises that
supposedly (according to Arrow
