[EM] (no subject)

[Warren Smith]

> The way I read it, it seems he suggests SFBC is too strong. If you
> insist upon SFBC, you get a method that treats at least the two first
> ranks equally, either directly (type 1) or indirectly (type 2). Thus you
> can either insist on SFBC and have methods that treat the top two of a
> voter's ranking equally, or you can relax it to FBC (and thus get MDDA
> and the likes) in which case only *sometimes* do the voters need to
> (have an incentive to) rank the top two equal.
>

--yah, I am vaguely getting that sort of impression too.

In which case, I say Small should just come out and SAY THAT.
Take a clear succinct stand.  Or at least offer it.

-- 
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
and
math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html