<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'>
Mono-Add-Plump is just a way of saying: There should be no such thing as self-defeating voting. That would be nice, if achieved by proposably-brief<br>FBC/ABE methods.<br> <br>If anyone objects to MMT's Mono-Add-Plump failure, which merely amounts to lack of protection for poor, self-defeating, strategy; or if anyone objects to the<br>optional mutuality-requirement available in MTAOC and AOC, one answer is: <br><br>If that's the worst strategic criticism that you can make for these methods, then maybe you should compare it to the strategy problems of methods that <br>you like more. If that's the worst thing about these methods, then consider that in the light of other methods' strategy problems.<br><br>Another thing that some critics might have missed: In AOC, MTAOC, MCAOC and AOCBucklin, the mutuality-requirement is optional. You can<br>make a middle-rating conditional, or not, as you choose. <br><br>Can you legitimately criticize it if it's an option? Each person's voting power is hir own. Each person's approval of any particular candidate is hir own. <br>Shouldn't s/he be able to give it when and if s/he chooses? <br><br>Regarding the methods listed in the paragraph before previous, is there a valid objection to allowing those ways of voting, ways of using one's<br>approvals, in an Approval election?<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br><br><br> </div></body>
</html>