<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<BR>
I've just realized what I liked so much about MMPO: It meets FBC. That means <BR>
that we _don't_ do a CC-check with MMPO, and so it fails CC. That's ok. I'd gladly trade CC<BR>
for FBC.<BR>
<BR>
It seems to me that someone posted an example in which the wv methods give someone a way to<BR>
improve their outcome by burying their favorite.<BR>
<BR>
It woudl rarely happen, and it wouldn't cause me to favorite-bury. But many others will, if they can't<BR>
be assured that there could never be such a situation. That's why, at the time when I quit EM last time, <BR>
I no longer advocated wv for public elections.<BR>
<BR>
I had several FBC-complying methods that I liked very much, with such names as MMC, MAMPO, MDDB, SR...etc.<BR>
<BR>
I haven't been able to find what MDDB and SR were. Or MAMPO either.<BR>
<BR>
Can anyone tell me, or tell me where I can look it up? <BR>
<BR>
Right now, of the rank methods I _currently_ know the definitions of, and have checked out a little, my favorite is<BR>
Bucklin(= whole simultaneous) (simulataneous as opposed to Ordered Bucklin versions, in which rankings<BR>
give to their next choices in some order, instead of simultaneously).<BR>
<BR>
For brevity, I'll call that method "Stepwise Approval" (SA).<BR>
<BR>
SA meets FBC, SDSC, and MMC.<BR>
<BR>
MMC stands for Mutual Majority Criterion. It's also called Majority for Solid Coalitions. MMC is weaker than<BR>
SDSC, but, because it's desirable, and because it's so attainable, there's probably no need to do without it.<BR>
<BR>
I don't know if non-CC PC (MM(wv)), MDDA, or the other methods I liked meet SDSC. I guess they probably <BR>
meet MMC, but I don't currently know.<BR>
<BR>
It's difficult to choose between Approval and a good rank method, for a public proposal.<BR>
<BR>
Rank methods elicit more interest from people, because they can offer more. <BR>
<BR>
But rank methods have the disadvantage that there are so many ways to count rankings, that people<BR>
are overwhelmed, and hear conflicting advice. How to count the rankings, they wonder.<BR>
<BR>
Also, Approval is like a solid, reliable and simple hand-tool. It isn't as labor-saving as a good rank method.<BR>
The rank-methods are labor-saving machines. But machines can have their problems &/or idiosyncracies.<BR>
Some or many will sometimes act up or do things that will embarrass you. Some more than others,<BR>
of course.<BR>
<BR>
It has been shown, here, and in journal articles, that Approval will soon home in on the CW. After a few<BR>
elecions. But "a few elections" can be a decade or more. We'd like better results before that, and so<BR>
I'm for a rank method as much as anyone is. If we can overcome the problem of voters confronted with<BR>
so many different rank counts.<BR>
<BR>
And the problem of telling the voter why our rank proposal is desirable.<BR>
<BR>
Mike Ossipoff<BR>
<BR> </div></body>
</html>