[EM] RE : Chris: Approval

Chris Benham chrisjbenham at optusnet.com.au
Wed Mar 21 09:54:20 PDT 2007

Michael Ossipoff wrote:

> Hearing my criteria, someone knows what’s being said in terms of 
> real-world concerns, terms, and considerations.
> The same cannot be said for your fictitious rankings system.
> Can I give your system an abbreviation, since I refer to it often in 
> this message?:
> Fictitiously Assumed Ranking Criteria System (FARCS)
> Ok now let me clarify that I’m only calling it _your_ system, or 
> Chris’s system for convenience. . I’ve been told that FARCS is the 
> standard academic approach to criteria involving preference, as their 
> way of trying to avoid preference.. “Oh, say no more, where do I sign 
> up?”
> That’s why you and Chris like it. 

I think Douglas Woodall just considers that in his "preferential 
election rule (PER) universe" all ballots are ranked
ballots with truncation allowed and above-bottom equal ranking not, but 
on occasion he has specified exceptions
where truncation isn't allowed either. He interprets/analyses plurality 
as "First-Preference Plurality" (FPP) that
allows voters to enter lower preferences but ignores them, and Approval 
as a ranked-ballot method that allows
truncation and interprets all ranked candidates as approved.

I'll get around to posting a "precise definition" of a "criteria system" 
I like.

Chris Benham

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list