Social Choice and Individual Values - Proof

Proof

The proof is in two parts (Arrow, 1963, pp. 97–100). The first part considers the hypothetical case of some one voter's ordering that prevails ('is decisive') as to the social choice for some pair of social states no matter what that voter's preference for the pair, despite all other voters opposing. It is shown that, for a constitution satisfying Unrestricted Domain, Pareto and Independence, that voter's ordering would prevail for every pair of social states, no matter what the orderings of others. So, the voter would be a Dictator. Thus, Nondictatorship requires postulating that no one would so prevail for even one pair of social states.

The second part considers more generally a set of voters that would prevail for some pair of social states, despite all other voters (if any) preferring otherwise. Pareto and Unrestricted Domain for a constitution imply that such a set would at least include the entire set of voters. By Nondictatorship, the set must have at least 2 voters. Among all such sets, postulate a set such that no other set is smaller. Such a set can be constructed with Unrestricted Domain and an adaptation of the voting paradox to imply a still smaller set. This contradicts the postulate and so proves the theorem.

Read more about this topic:  Social Choice And Individual Values

Famous quotes containing the word proof:

    “War is a beastly business, it is true, but one proof we are human is our ability to learn, even from it, how better to exist.”
    —M.F.K. Fisher (1908–1992)

    “If any proof were needed of the progress of the cause for which I have worked, it is here tonight. The presence on the stage of these college women, and in the audience of all those college girls who will some day be the nation’s greatest strength, will tell their own story to the world.”
    —Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906)

    “From whichever angle one looks at it, the application of racial theories remains a striking proof of the lowered demands of public opinion upon the purity of critical judgment.”
    —Johan Huizinga (1872–1945)