<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Hi Mike,</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">{quote}</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN>Kevin--<BR>You wrote:<BR><BR>ER-IRV(whole) doesn't satisfy FBC. You may need to demote your favorite in order<BR>to get a preferable elimination order.<BR> <BR>[endquote]<BR><BR>How? Say that there's a particular candidate whom you need to have win. <BR><BR>You can give him a vote by downrating your favorite in order to get hir eliminated soon,<BR>so that your ballot will give a vote to the compromise. But you could also just give the<BR>compromise an immediate vote, by ranking hir in 1st place. Why would you need to do otherwise<BR>in order to help hir win?</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">{end quote}</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">Because your compromise's ability to win may depend on which candidates were </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">eliminated and when. By downranking your favorite you can affect that.</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">{quote}</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">What do you mean when you say "even when the scenario isn't S? If "S" represents a scenario <BR>meeting the stipulations of the criterion's premise, then the criterion only makes a requirement<BR>when those stipulations are met. It says nothing about any other scenario. That's true of all<BR>criteria, not just mine.<BR><BR>No criterion, including mine, says anything about what should happen when the "scenario" described<BR>by its premise-stipulagions doesn't happen.</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">{end quote}</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">This is a difference of theory and practice. In theory a criterion only addresses the sincere </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">scenarios in mentions. In practice it will have broader implications. That's all it is.</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">{quote}<BR style="RIGHT: auto">You _weren't_ right Bucklin(= whole simultaneous)<BR>not meeting FBC, because you were thinking that FBC requires that no one need to <BR>vote someone equal to their favorite. Actually, FBC requires only that<BR>no one need to vote someone _over_ their favorite.</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">{end quote}</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">I erroneously claimed ERBucklin(whole) failed monotonocity, because I misunderstood how</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">the method worked. I don't remember ever saying ERBW failed FBC.</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><BR style="RIGHT: auto">{quote}</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">Yes, SFC protects sincere CWs. Do SFC complying methods protect other candidates who don't<BR>have a majority defeat (and, in that way "look like sincere CWs)? Sure. What's the problem<BR>with that?</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">{end quote}<BR style="RIGHT: auto"></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">There's no problem with that. It's just an observation that a criterion like SFC may have</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">implications beyond the scenarios it purports to deal with.</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">Kevin</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"> </div></div></body></html>