1st Order Precedence method

[Mike Ositoff]

My previous letter didn't post yet. Maybe it's due to a slowdown.
In it I admitted that Sequential Dropping isn't the
same as plain Condorcet(EM), and I discussed what various
Condorcet versions do in my indecisiveness example.

Though it almost surely isn't a good public proposal, I'd
like to define 1st Order Precedence (FOP):

Of the alternatives that each has fewest votes-against in
at least 1 1st order cycle among the Smith set, the winner
is the one that does best in that regard.

Almost brief enough for a public proposal, but there's still
the campaign disadvantage of the Pareto violation.
	
But it eliminates all subcycle fratricide and (by its defintion)
only picks 1st order winners, avoiding the foul-ups that can
otherwise happen.

I don't know if it meets the 2 "new voter" criteria that the
other Condorcet versions meet.

My wording of LKOP needs fixing. For 1 thing, I neglected to
specify that I was talking about the Smith set, ratherqi