Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem: Difference between revisions

Line 68:

:: [[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]], I find your selected quote unconvincing, for reasons that I described in [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2020-January/002408.html my January 9 response to "fdpk69p6uq"]. Note that "fdpk69p6uq" [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2020-January/002415.html replied to me on January 10] and then [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2020-January/002429.html Kristofer Munsterhjelm replied to both of us on January 14]. It may be worth bringing [[User:Kristomun]] into this conversation, but regardless, that particular interview didn't persuade me. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 07:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

::: I think my vote here would be simple: we should let a mention of the possible/likely evasion of cardinal methods of Arrow's Theorem go to the top of the cardinal voting methods page, and then include a disclaimer "see below for controversy and discussion" linking to a more detailed section section. It doesn't seem right to not have this be very close to the top, since it's one of the major vectors of comparison between ranked and rated methods, and one of the biggest reasons someone would consider abandoning traditional voting theory results. Also, RobLa, I'm still interested in hearing why you took out the sentence saying "all pure cardinal methods pass the participation criterion", since you presumably don't have an objection to that. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 07:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

:::: [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] I have read through much of thead thread and it does not give me much hope. There are several people there telling you that you are wrong in several different ways. Perhaps their error was being too charitable in their method of telling you this. You are not wrong that all systems have problems. You are wrong that Arrow's theorem applies to all systems. You will not accept the statements from Arrow or authoritative compendiums either. In all the time I have been studying this I have never heard of anybody but you who thinks Arrow's theorem applies to Cardinal methods. I understand that it is nuanced but there is no real trick. I think you are stuck in a bit of cognitive dissonance since you seem to understand how unrestricted domain is not defined in a way which includes score but still want to include score in the theorem. I suspect your motivations are biased to want to suppress that cardinal systems have this clear advantage over ordinal systems. What concerns me here is that you have a lot of power over electowiki as you are the moderator. Those adding content are unable to convince you but you have final veto power. You are using this to force us to change your mind but you are not willing to let it be changed despite a ton of evidence. I am not sure how to resolve this situation. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 21:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)