4,193
edits
Talk:Independence of Worst Alternatives: Difference between revisions
Talk:Independence of Worst Alternatives (view source)
Revision as of 20:13, 30 May 2020
, 3 years ago→Rationale: adding a header to this topic without other comment
(Created page with "This seems related to: Local independence A criterion weaker than IIA proposed by H. Peyton Young and A. Levenglick is called local independence from irrelevant alternatives...") |
(→Rationale: adding a header to this topic without other comment) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
== Rationale ==
This seems related to:
Line 16 ⟶ 17:
from the Wikipedia article on IIA.
[[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 04:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
:In my opinion, this criterion is problematic because, even though most single-winner election methods can be generalized in a natural manner to a method to calculate a collective ranking, people who propose a new single-winner election method usually don't claim that the resulting collective ranking has some meaning whatsoever. When someone proposes a new single-winner election method, you would have to put into his mouth this claim (that this single-winner election method should be generalized in a certain manner to calculate a collective ranking) to be able to check whether this method satisfies this criterion. To circumvent this problem (that the same single-winner election method can be generalized in different manners to calculate a collective ranking), I propose the "Increasing Sequential Independence" criterion in my [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.02973v6.pdf paper]. The "Increasing Sequential Independence" criterion says that when candidate A is a winner, then there must be a (not necessarily unique) candidate B such that, when candidate B is deleted, then candidate A is still a winner. The "Increasing Sequential Independence" criterion is identical to the "Independence of Worst Alternatives" criterion except for the fact that the "Increasing Sequential Independence" criterion makes no presumptions on how the proposed single-winner election method has to be generalized to calculate a collective ranking. [[User:MarkusSchulze|MarkusSchulze]] ([[User talk:MarkusSchulze|talk]]) 17:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
| |||