Unrestricted domain
Each voter can chose whichever candidates they want in whatever order they want. No, I dont know why he chose to call it that rather than free choice or something more straightforward, but Im not a Nobel Prizewinning economist, so what do I know?
Unanimity
Say there are three candidates: Ed, Dave and Nick. If every individual prefers Ed to Dave, then the group as a whole can be said to prefer Ed to Dave.
Non-dictatorship
No one person gets to decide the outcome specically, the outcome shouldnt always match the opinion of one person.
voter is therefore a dictator over the whole group (it is not necessarily true that the pivotal voters in both scenarios are the same, but it can be proven by saying the dictator for Nick over Dave must be outside group two, and for Dave over Nick musit be outside group one therefore, must be outside both, and the only person tting those criteria is the pivotal voter). This means there is a dictator, and the system is, by Arrows denition, unfair.
Bibliography
Arrow, K.J. (1950). A Diculty in the Concept of Social Welfare. The Journal of Political Economy. 58, pp.328-346. Collins, N. (2003). Arrows Theorem Proves No Voting System is Perfect. Available from: http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N8/8voting.8n.html. Accessed 27th Nov 2013. Geanakoplos, J. (1996, April (Revised 2001, July)). Three Brief Proofs of ARROWS IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. Available from: http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cd/d11a/d1123r3.pdf. Accessed: 27th Nov 2013. Yu, N.N. (2012, January). A One-shot Proof of Arrows Impossibility Theorem. Stanford University, Stanford. Available from: http://bit.ly/Ih5Dp9. Accessed: 27th Nov 2013. Implications of Arrows Impossibility Theorem for Voting Methods [online]. (2001). Available from: http://alumnus.caltech.edu/ seppley/Arrows Impossibility Theorem for Social Choice Methods.htm. [Accessed 27th Nov. 2013].