2 Corrections

[Mike Ossipoff]

2 corrections to my Single-Winner FAQ. Contrary to what I said:

1. MPV meets the Condorcet Loser Criterion.
2. Copeland sometimes requires a defensive strategy of voting a
   less-liked alternative over a more-liked one.

***

I can't disagree with the cancelation of the vote on standards,
since no one but me has voted. The vote wasn't happening.

Also, it's true that there's been discussion of standards, and
evaluation of methods by standards. Maybe that has to be done in
a completely free-form manner, as it has been done so far.

Of course I also can't disagree with the choice of initial FAQ.

***

But, perhaps simultaneous with the work on a FAQ, should we vote
on a recommendation? Some of the ER members who complained about
our detailed discussions on ER said that we should just send them
a recommendation. So a recommendation from us has been requested
by ER members. Of course we could save that recommendation till
after we work on a FAQ for a while, or we could, just to find out
how the vote goes, vote on a recommendation sooner. What do others
suggest?

***

Mike


--