[EM] 3 it is, then, for tie in designated method.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>I like 3 because it's close to zero-info Approval strategy for many voters;
>4 and 5 would just add more math with probably little benefit. Since 3
>already boosts your strategy threshold by throwing out candidates below
>your threshold (and you can't predict which of them might still be viable),
>that probably partly overcomes the few-voters situation. If you'd like me
>to rank them, then I'd say 3-2-1-5-4. (If Voter's Choice were applied to a
>public election I'd prefer 2, since it would be easier to explain than 3 
>and
>strategically probably better than 1).

Ok, then let's say we'll use 3, unless anyone objects.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com