=?iso-8859-1?q?Re:=20[EM]=20No, =20Random=20Candidate=20doesn=B4t=20meet?= FBC (as of now)

[Kevin Venzke]

Mike,

 --- MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> a écrit : 
> 
> 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.

You hate RC so much that FBC has to do double-duty now? Why can't you just
make a "nonrandom criterion"?

> 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.

I can't believe you would justify *criteria* based on what is "proposable" or
a "main proposal."

Kevin Venzke



	

	
		
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails ! 
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/