This vote, should it pass, will effect the lives of the men, women of the greater RHP comunity; young and old alike. This day will be marked in th annals of this fine site's history as never before and we can say we were there when it happened, firsthand wittnesses to the event.
(Paid for by the citizens for the yes vote. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.)
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH- If alternative A is ranked above B for all individual preferences, then A is ranked higher than B. (unanimity)
Define fair.
- There is no individual whose preferences always prevail. (non-dictatorship)
- If A is voted as preferred to B, then introducing a third alternative X, must not make B preferable to A (independence of irrelevant alternatives)
Originally posted by PalynkaSo--- if I'm reading you aright--- limiting the choices to two options is the preferred, i.e., 'fair' method?
- If alternative A is ranked above B for all individual preferences, then A is ranked higher than B. (unanimity)
- There is no individual whose preferences always prevail. (non-dictatorship)
- If A is voted as preferred to B, then introducing a third alternative X, must not make B preferable to A (independence of irrelevant alternatives)
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo. The theorem states that no voting system is fair in the above sense. Have you read about Condorcet's voting paradox? It's a good illustration of one of the problems with voting systems, although AIT is more general.
So--- if I'm reading you aright--- limiting the choices to two options is the preferred, i.e., 'fair' method?