[EM] FBC wording

[James Green-Armytage]

Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr> writes:
>No one's alternatives to FBC have resembled mine, and I think my "weak"
>version is wrong, but I don't see what's wrong with my "strong" version.
>Any comments from anyone?  Did I leave a loophole of some kind?
>
>Keeping in mind that this criterion is supposed to be unattainable:

	I think FBC isn't totally unattainable, but it's incompatible with
certain other properties that are basically necessary for most election
purposes, such as universal domain. I think that this method passes FBC,
for example:

	The options are laid along a spectrum before the voting takes place, by
some sort of authority figure. Voters then are unable to order their
preferences in a way that is incompatible with the order of the spectrum.
That is, if the order of the spectrum is A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J, then you can
cast a vote A>B>C>D>E>F>G>H>I>J, or J>I>H>G>F>E>D>C>B>A, or
C>B>A>D>E>F>G>H>I>J, or E>F>D>G>C>B>A>J, but not A>C>B>D>E>F>G>H>I>J, or
A>J>I>H>D>B>C>G>C>E. I suppose that truncation would also be disallowed.
The winner of course, would be the candidate(s) unbeaten in pairwise
comparison.
	As far as I know, there is no possibility of a Condorcet paradox when
options are necessarily laid down on a spectrum like this, and therefore I
think that there is no favorite betrayal incentive.
	Correct me if I'm wrong.
	Probably I am stating the obvious here, but I just find this method to be
somewhat interesting. Kevin's statement isn't really an error, but just a
short way of saying something that we usually don't need to bother
mentioning, that is, those "obviously necessary" criteria such as
universal domain. I just wanted to talk about this method, because I think
that it might have some application for public voting. For example, let's
say that you were taking a public vote to determine what the prison
sentence should be for possession of a pound of cocaine. If the possible
options are 1 month, 2 month, 3 months, 4 months..., then it would be
irrational for people to vote as 1 month > 4 months > 3 months > 2 months.
Hence it would be unnecessary for the method to allow this. Probably the
applications for this are fairly limited, but still it's nice to know that
we can produce such a trouble-free voting system for certain purposes.