[EM] FBC ambiguity & changes

[Richard Moore]

MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> To avoid having to compare the probabilities of making X or Y the
> unique winner, it probably _is_ better to speak of only counting
> John's ballot, if that would avoid the problem. So that's my
> official definition now. But there's still that other problem mentioned
> above, which I don't yet know what to do about.


Counting just the one ballot takes care of both problems, unless we
want to talk about a method, such as you suggested, requiring a margin
of victory greater than one. You could extend the definition to say that
you count that one ballot the minimum number of times needed to
get a decisive win. However, the wording may start to get unwieldy.

  -- Richard