Talk:Cardinal voting systems: Difference between revisions
→Arrow and cardinal methods
(Cleaning up the topic headlines (adding headlines where necessary). Mainly formatting; no new comments from me (yet)) |
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 37:
: [[User:RobLa]] I do not see how this could be considered controversial. Arrow did not consider Cardinal methods in his proof. Further work proved that extensions to Cardinal methods work as described. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 02:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
:: [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy]] and [[User:Dr. Edmonds]], I think a ''variant'' of the text I removed could be added lower in the page. I truly believe that the intro has become too long, and the article has a lot of other problems that I'd like to fix when I get the chance (e.g. section titles really shouldn't be hyperlinks). The intro section to an article really should only be (at most) 2-3 short paragraphs that summarize the remainder of the article. I copied and adapted a section of the "[[Arrow's impossibility theorem]]" article, which I think gives this the issue its due. You can also see my comments over on [[Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem]] where I've documented the [[EM list]] conversation about Arrow and cardinal methods. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 06:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
::: [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] The information you removed is important and should be in the page. There are several similar proofs/paradoxes which are important to not conflate. The [[Voting paradox]] lists them. Perhaps somebody with deep knowledge on this can do a full comparison. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
| |||