[FRIAM] Fwd: Arrow's Impossibility Theorem

[Robert Holmes]

Errr.... I've forgotten the scheme too. I'll look up what I wrote when I get
back from the cradle of democracy (I'm heading out there to visit family
tomorrow). I think this is a great idea for a WedTech - just don't schedule
it for next week as I'll be up a hill in Yorkshire in the rain.

R

On 3/27/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the (old) repeat, but Arrow's Impossibility Theorem came up
> at last Friam, so I thought I'd resend the past post.
>
> The conversation relating to AIT included noting that the US two
> party scheme does not escape the issue, due to the primaries
> basically being a tournament run off amongst 3 or more candidates,
> and that the parties themselves are built from several coalitions,
> thus are greater than a 2-choice vote/game.
>
> One thought I had on the matter was:
>    - Let everyone vote in both primaries
>    - Hold all primaries on the same day
>
> BTW: Since this was written, Robert Holmes discussed with several of
> us one of the fair voting schemes in the UK.  I forget the details,
> but the aim was to insure the individual voters maximized their input
> into the vote.  Robert -- do you know where that scheme fits into AIT?
>
> I would like to add that AIT is germane to ABM: may of the models
> have agents "voting" amongst each other for access to resources, and
> similarly, voting within themselves for behavior rules, often with
> knowledge of the community's preferences.  Both are within AIT, I'd
> guess.
>
> We may want to put our heads together at an upcoming wedtech to see
> if we understand this, and its impact on our work.
>
>      -- Owen
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070329/30de4625/attachment.html