# [EM] FBC wording

James Green-Armytage jarmyta at antioch-college.edu
Tue Feb 10 20:33:02 PST 2004

```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
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.

```