Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem: Difference between revisions

:::: [[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)

::::: [[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]], thank you for reading the thread. Let's start with our respective biases. You are stating my bias in an uncharitable way: "''to suppress that cardinal systems have this clear advantage over ordinal systems''". I'll admit to having a bias, but allow me to restate it: "''It seems to me that *all* voting systems (not a mere subset) are subject to some form of impossibility problem.''". That's a direct quote from my January 9 email. My fear, confirmed by your attempt to state my bias, is that you believe that the inapplicability of the [[universality criterion]] to cardinal methods is somehow confers superiority of cardinal systems over ordinal systems. Even if I were to concede that cardinal methods aren't subject to Arrow's theorem, it wouldn't change my belief that cardinal methods fail other important criteria, and are subject to other important impossibility theorems. Moreover, in [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2020-January/002423.html my January 12 response to Jim Faran], I expanded on why I believed that [[universality criterion]] is important in assessing the fairness of a system. I'll respond to your point about my moderator role in my subsequent response to BetterVotingAdvocacy. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 02:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

:::: [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy]] I think I more-or-less agree with your proposal. The "see below" bit is implied, so it may not be needed; everything in the summary should be covered in more detail in the latter part of the article. I removed the bit about the participation criterion because of the context that it was stated; it implied that cardinal methods don't violate any important criteria and minimized the significance of [[universality criterion]]. We don't have to have an exhaustive list of all criteria for the reader of the summary, but I don't want to leave the impression that cardinal methods pass all criteria. We still need to trim the introduction by quite a bit; we may need a general "criteria passed by cardinal methods" section (or some other similar name). -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 02:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)