[EM] Chris: Forest's FBC/ABC method (MIKE OSSIPOFF)

[fsimmons at pcc.edu]

Mike is right; it should be called MaxMin instead of MinMax.

> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF 
> To: 
> Subject: [EM] Chris: Forest's FBC/ABC method
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 
> Chris--
> 
> I'll describe Forest's proposal briefly:
> 
> It's minmax margins (but it's defined as maxmin, with respect to 
> x>y - y>x), 
> looking at all pairwise comparisons, rather than just at defeats.
> 
> But, instead of just x>y - y>x, it's x top or >y - y>x. 
> 
> As I said in my other posting, it seems to have the same properties
> as MMT. In other words, FBC, LNHa, 3P, and the (unnecessary) 
> Mono-Add-Plump
> and the (unnecessary) avoidance of electing C in Kevin's MMPO 
> "bad"-example.
> 
> Though Mono-Add-Plump and complying in Kevin's example are 
> unnecessary,they avoid misguided or dishonest criticism by 
> opponents of a reform proposal.
> 
> As I've said, maybe it's better to ask for a little less than 
> MMPO and MDDTR,
> in order to avoid the distraction that such criticisms could 
> cause, during an
> enactment campaign. --especially given that the opponents are 
> likely to have
> a lot more media money than the proponents.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff