[EM] Does cycle-collapsing spoil MMPO's FBC compliance?

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sun Jun 5 22:48:36 PDT 2005

MMPO's FBC compliance somes from its stark simplicity and the fact that it 
ignores who beats whom. But cycles are about who beats whom. Maybe FBC 
compliance is as easy to lose as it is difficult to gain.

For me, those things suggest that it isn't obvious that cycle-collapsing 
doesn't spoil MMPO's FBC compliance, but I don't claim to know one way or 
the other.

If the cycle-collapsing does spoil the FBC compliance, then maybe FBC is 
incompatible with ICC and MMC. If so, then I choose FBC over ICC and MMC, 
just as I choose it over CC and Smith.

CC, Smith, ICC, and MMC aren't completely unrleated to strategy. They're 
each about something that should be so if everyone votes sincerely. If 
everyone votes sincerely? Good luck. The evidence so far suggests that in 
public elections people are not inclined to vote sincerely. Even when 
they're using a method (in Australia) that meets MMC and ICC. In fact 
there's a tendency to deviate from sincerity in the most drastic way.

With the most timid, giveaway-prone lesser-of-2-evils voters, you must offer 
them the strongest reassuring guarantee. A guarantee for them as an 
individual, independent of how anyone else votes, a guarantee that they 
won't have to do the most extreme form of giveaway voting, no matter what. 
If there's anything that can reassure people to not bury their favorite, 
it's FBC.

And when it comes with SFC, and (with AERLO)  SDSC and Strong FBC, so much 
the better.

Mike Ossipoff

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list