<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'>
<pre>Forest--<br><br>You wrote:<br><br>I wonder if it is possible for a CL to win three slot MMPO when the number of ballots on which X appears <br>in the bottom slot is counted as an oppsitions to X.<br><br>In other words, I wonder if the CL disqualification is redudant in that context.<br><br>Also, how does the CLD rule affect the FBC in general?<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>I too have been concerned that FBC compliance could be affected by CLD, or the other<br>disqualification and completion proposals that I've speculatively suggested.<br><br>I suggest that when one method is completed by another, or when there are <br>disqualifications, the "," relation should be used instead of the "//" relation. <br><br>So, when applying the 2nd method--the completion method, or the method used after<br>the disqualifications--the entire initial set of candidates would be used in <br>calculating the scores for the completion or post-disqualification method, even<br>though that method is applied only to the post-disqualification candidates.<br><br>Doesn't that do a lot to protect FBC compliance.<br><br>I found that CLDMMPO wouldn't avoid Kevin's MMPO bad-example (I mentioned that in<br>my other post today). But, as Ted suggested, maybe 3-slot methods can avoid many<br>of the problems that can happen with unlimited-ranking methods. So that's another<br>thing to investigate. Might 3-slot MMPO be easier to protect from Kevin's <br>bad-example? Is there some easy way to achieve that?<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br></pre> </div></body>
</html>