[EM] Oops--the comparison was with SD, not CWP

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 1 16:35:31 PDT 2005

I said to add SFC to the unenhanced criteria trade, as if one were trading 
CWP for MMPO. But the trade being discussed was SD for MMPO. Both of those 
methods meet SFC, and so SFC isn't part of that trade.

So, as James said, it's a trade of Smith, Condorcet, MMC, and CL for FBC and 

I don't agree that that is a lousy trade. That's a subjective judgement, of 
course, and, for someone else, concerned about different things than the 
things that concern me, it could be a different matter.

I've told why FBC is worth the loss of those other criteria: FBC is very 
much related to the matter of drastic defensive strategy need. Those other 
criteria affect that less. Voters seem to feel a need to bury their 
favorite, even with rank methods, and so it would be best to propose a rank 
method that absolutely guarantees that they don't need to do that.

As embarrassing as CL failure might be, the fact is that it is not 
important. And the badness of the government that could result is greatly 
moderated and reduced by MMPO.

CC & MMC of course relatre to strategy, but not in the stark way that FBC 
does. The really timid voter need's FBC's guarantee.

With enhancement, as I was saying, MMPO gains SDSC, ICC, MMC, GSFC, and 
Strong FBC.

So, with enhancement, the trade is FBC and Strong FBC, for CL. That's an 
overwhelmingly good trade.

Mike Ossipoff

Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list