[EM] No, Random Candidate doesn´t meet FBC (as of now)

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Yes, Random did meet FBC, till I posted this message. I´m adding brief 
wording to FBC, so that Random Candidate (RC) won´t meet FBC. Then FBC will 
be acting in the spirit and intent of FBC even if the method is RC.

I define two changed FBCs, for that purpose:

Non-Random FBC adds wording to the effect that the criterion only applies to 
nonrandom methods.

A nonrandom method is a method that ordinarily doesn´t use randomization in 
its choice process, but only uses randomization if, because two or more of 
its count sums, as could rarely happen, are the same, it either doesn´t 
return a winner, or it returns more than one winner.

Feel free to suggest a better definition of a nonrandom method, or to point 
out a problem with the above definition, if it has one. If it has one, I´ll 
change the definition.

Certainty FBC makes the following small wording change: Change "...s/he can 
get his/her best outcome..." to "...s/he can get his/her best outcome with 
certainty...".

Either is fine with me. I propose and advocate them both.

SARC would probably need some overhaul to achieve what Certainty FBC 
achieves, and so, at least for now, the only RC-proof SARC that I propose is 
Non-Random SARC, which only applies to nonrandom methods.

The Non-Random versions of those criteria are, of course, strictly speaking, 
rules-criteria. I´ve said that I don´t like rule-criteria. But when the only 
rules stipulation is that the method be a nonrandom method, that  isn´t a 
rules criterion in the objecionable sense, since all the main proposals are 
nonrandom methods, and nonrandom methods are the only ones proposable as a 
first voting system reform proposal.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement