[EM] Clarification re: Schwartz-complying methods

[Michael Ossipoff]

I meant that methods that use Ranked-Pairs or Beatpath, or otherwise
choose from the Schwartz set can't meet FBC. That includes the new
method proposals from Chris and from me during the recent few days. In
paricular, it includes Symmetrical-IC-Beatpath(lv),
Symmetrical-IC-Ranked-Pairs(lv), and Symmetrical-IC-Schwartz-Top.

Maybe it can  be proven that it isn't possible to meet all of the
criteria that I listed in my previous post, but, until there's proof
one way or the other, the fair presumption is that no such method can
be possible. That's strongly suggested by the fact that no such method
is yet known.

That means that, for the criteria that I claim are important, to avoid
major distortion of preferences, and the consequent societal harm, ICT
and Symmetrical ICT are the best and most deluxe methods proposed--and
quite possibly the best and most deluxe methods possible.

But I re-emphasize that I propose them only for informational polling,
and that, for official public elecions I propose and recommend only
Approval and Score.

I also want to re-emphasize that, though I said that I offer ICT, of
course ICT was Chris Benham's proposal. Benham was the introducer and
intial proponent and advocate of ICT.

And I should mention again that the initial suggestion of Improved
Condorcet was from Kevin Venzke.

Mike Ossipoff