Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem: Difference between revisions
→EPOV on Arrow and cardinal methods
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 36:
:: [[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]], I think we agree on many things. For example, monotonicity is an important (and underrated) criterion for electoral systems. Furthermore, all systems have trade-offs, and some of the trade-offs are not worth it (we agree on that, too). But, I believe all rhetorical strategies also have trade-offs, and some are not worth it. Trying to jump through a loophole in Arrow's theorem just complicates the discussion in an unhelpful way. The [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2020-January/thread.html#2403 EM list discussion in January] (that stretched into February) didn't come to a consensus, but generally was sympathetic to [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2020-January/002403.html my original January 9 email]. I particularly appreciated [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2020-January/002425.html Forest Simmons' response on January 13], where he improves on my "no perfect car" metaphor. ''Even if'' cardinal methods are not subject to Arrow's theorem, there are plenty of other theorems that close the loophole described. If you still hold this position, could you make your case on [[EM list]]? -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 22:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
::: If I may, I'd like to point out that one of the main reasons imo that it is interesting to say cardinal methods aren't affected by Arrow's Theorem is because this implies cardinal methods pass [[IIA]]. That is an argument some cardinal advocates make in favor of their methods (that this implies their voting methods are free of the spoiler effect, since candidates can enter and drop out of the race without changing the result). While that can be vigorously debated (for example, if any voter changes their scores for candidates who are present both before and after some candidates enter or drop out of the race, then cardinal methods fail IIA), it seems only right to put something on this wiki that helps the debate to happen. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 23:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
:::: [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] I just can't get behind your argument. You admit that cardinal methods are not subject to Arrow's theorem. Your argument seems to be that since they are subject to other similar theorems we should say that it is subject to Arrow's. That is totally illogical. We need to be precise in what applies to what. I do not understand your motivation for wanting to do this. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 03:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
| |||