Vaniver comments on Democracy and rationality - Less Wrong

8 Post author: homunq 30 October 2013 12:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (47)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: satt 31 October 2013 03:25:22AM 1 point [-]

I'm moderately confident I know what the theorem means. I'm almost certain that our disagreement stems from different uses of the phrase "a priori dictator," and so hope that disagreement will disappear quickly.

I'm glad you've opened a discussion about this, BTW, even if it turns out you are wrong. I wondered myself what exactly the non-dictatorship criterion meant when I started reading the commentary on "Arrow's Paradox" in Ken Binmore's Playing Fair. After I read all of it I was fairly sure non-dictatorship referred to what you call an a priori dictator, but couldn't be totally sure because I didn't have the patience to sit down and puzzle through it systematically.

Comment author: Vaniver 31 October 2013 03:32:14AM *  2 points [-]

I'm glad you've opened a discussion about this, BTW, even if it turns out you are wrong.

I was wrong. Hansen's 2002 proof was much, much easier for me to understand than the other ones, but I was reluctant to generalize it past 2 voters until I wrestled with homunq's example. Even after seeing it in the 3 voter case, I had to resist an impulse that said "but surely there's an n such that an n voter situation works!"