Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting systems/Included methods and criteria

message: Local IIA is a criteria that applies exclusively to Condorcet methods.  Condorcet methods do not comply with real IIA, as any other ranked method fails. If it is a condorcet method, it is redundant to say it is local IIA.  I propose to remove it from the table and where it is used to evaluate a method.  This does not include the article that describes it.--Fahrenheit451 2 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)
:It's not redundant for Condorcet methods. A method can satisfy Condorcet and Smith but still fail LIIA. KVenzke July 3, 2005 03:30 (UTC)
::F451, your point is well-taken, but overall I think that local IIAC is interesting, and I'd rather not remove it. Certainly not all Condorcet methods pass local IIAC. I wasn't aware that Smith methods fail it. KVenzke, could you please give an example? Do Condorcet and clone independence together imply local IIAC, or not? --Hermitage 3 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)
:::I can give a hypothetical example. Suppose that on the ballots 45 A>B>C 30 B>C>A 25 C>A>B, the method elects A. Then suppose D is added in this way: 45 A>B>D>C 30 B>C>A>D 25 C>A>B>D. (D is not in the Smith set.) Suppose now B is elected. Then LIIA has been violated, but Smith hasn't. KVenzke July 5, 2005 14:20 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I do understand your explanation.  I have modified my proposal however to include only the table.--Fahrenheit451 5 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
::::O.K. Then, so we agree that it is interesting, but it May only apply to Condorcet methods, exclusive of non-condorcet methods?  If so, then I shall modify my proposal.--Fahrenheit451 3 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
::::I modify my proposal to remove it only from the table, as the column criterion is IIA, then for the two condorcet methods, the definition is changed in the blocks.  This comes across as rather POV; no exceptional definitions are given for other methods, they either satify the criteria at the head of the columns or they do not. I think this is a fair proposal.--Fahrenheit451 4 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
The modified proposal as stated above has no objections.  This proposal has passed by tacit consent. The local IIA criteria will only be removed from the voting systems table. --Fahrenheit451 8 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
:Whoops. No, I don't agree with the modified proposal. I'm going to revert the edit until you can find some more supporters. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Hermitage 9 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)
I hereby withdraw from this forum in protest.  It has become a sham and a means to force POV agendas through.
It looks like we go back to edit wars.--Fahrenheit451 9 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
:Nobody is trying to force anything through. I just didn't think that we had achieved consensus on that particular proposal, and that your 8 July 2005 16:41 post resulted from a misunderstanding. However, if nobody voices a strong desire to restore the local IIA to the table, I will leave your edit as is. --Hermitage 08:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that local IIA should be in the table. - McCart42 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I suggest that you mention that explicitly on the general talk page, since F451 (the main opponent of local IIA) may not read this one anymore. If you put local IIA back into the table, I will support you. --Hermitage 21:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Local IIA from table and evaluative criteria