That is how an anonymous group of self-described arXiv “moderators” described my most recent work in progress “Weyl Versus Ramsey: A Primer on Bayesian Voting,” which I have been diligently working on during my summer break and which I tried to post to arXiv, an open-access electronic archive for a wide variety of fields, including “theoretical economics,” the category I used to submit my paper. (Theoretical economics includes “social choice theory,” which is what my paper was about. See also the nasty email from arXiv, pictured below.) Better luck next time, I guess? Thank goodness for SSRN!
prior probability 
That is harsh. All of your work that I have read has been on point.No idea why the would rejected it.
Admittedly, I created a whole new nomenclature (i.e. “Bayesian voting”) to describe voting systems that allow people to express the degree of their preferences (and not just their rank), so perhaps I exceeded the optimal level of “novelty” …
I suppose that could be true. Novelty is what makes the world dynamic. Interesting ideas should not be held back by ridged classifications.
It would be an excellent observational study to see a local town government adopt this voting model for the election of a mayor or city council seat.
I guess there is a fine line between a “crackpot theory” and a “cutting-edge one!
Pingback: Two works in progress | prior probability
I didn’t realize that a “repository” like arXiv was also a “referee”… here I was thinking I could post my own paper there, now I’m not so sure.
That’s what I thought as well, and I have posted several papers of mine there without incident, though it has generally taken several months for the process to play out behind the scenes. I am left wondering whether my rejection was due to the way I classified my paper. Previously, the referees (or should I say, “content moderators”) would classify the paper for you.