 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Is the sentence "Anonymous voting systems (with at least two voters) automatically satisfy the non-dictatorship property," really true? That is, does the non-dictatorship property require that the voter be aware of the influence of their vote, or is it sufficient for them to know the manipulations of their true preference that lead to personally desired global outcomes so they can cast such a ballot exercising (subjectively uncertain but intended) dictatorial power? See Arrow's impossibility theorem for a statement of the condition, which seems to imply a less trivial meaning than "more than one person votes" that the sentence in question seems to mean. If no one suggests a reason to keep or rephrase it, I'll delete this sentence in a couple months (when I happen to think of it again spontaniously :-P). --R. Clayton Barnes ( talk) 08:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Are there any voting systems that somehow fail to satisfy this criterion, apart from actual dictatorships? ± Lenoxus ( " *** ") 22:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The actual statement of the axiom in the current text is murky at best. The source I gave is hardly the only one, a clean-up should be easy, maybe cut and paste out of the Arrow-Debreu article. Lycurgus ( talk) 02:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The link to "Electronic meeting systems" seems to be entirely irrelevant and is associated with a link which seems to be nothing but an advertisement. I am going to remove it, if there is any reason to keep it please reinstate it but make it much more clear why it makes sense. HPA ( talk) 22:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Is the sentence "Anonymous voting systems (with at least two voters) automatically satisfy the non-dictatorship property," really true? That is, does the non-dictatorship property require that the voter be aware of the influence of their vote, or is it sufficient for them to know the manipulations of their true preference that lead to personally desired global outcomes so they can cast such a ballot exercising (subjectively uncertain but intended) dictatorial power? See Arrow's impossibility theorem for a statement of the condition, which seems to imply a less trivial meaning than "more than one person votes" that the sentence in question seems to mean. If no one suggests a reason to keep or rephrase it, I'll delete this sentence in a couple months (when I happen to think of it again spontaniously :-P). --R. Clayton Barnes ( talk) 08:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Are there any voting systems that somehow fail to satisfy this criterion, apart from actual dictatorships? ± Lenoxus ( " *** ") 22:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The actual statement of the axiom in the current text is murky at best. The source I gave is hardly the only one, a clean-up should be easy, maybe cut and paste out of the Arrow-Debreu article. Lycurgus ( talk) 02:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The link to "Electronic meeting systems" seems to be entirely irrelevant and is associated with a link which seems to be nothing but an advertisement. I am going to remove it, if there is any reason to keep it please reinstate it but make it much more clear why it makes sense. HPA ( talk) 22:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)