<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'>
Forest--<br><br>Yes, that method avoids the co-operation/defection problem in the standard Approval bad-example,<br>and it also avoids MMPO's criticism vulnerability by Kevin's MMPO bad-example.<br><br>And it's a lot simpler than the methods that use tie-at-top pairwise comparisons. That makes it easier to propose<br>than they are, and also makes it easier to test its properties.<br><br>Now it just remains to find out if it _always_ avoids the co-operation/defection problem. Can a situation be<br>devised in which it doesn't avoid that problem?<br><br>If not, then MMPO with the sum of disapprovals as an opposition is a better proposal than the tied-at-top<br>methods. When proposability is taken into account, it's the only rival to the conditional methods.<br><br>MMPO was the first FBC/ABE method we at EM knew of, and has a big simplicity advantage. In my conversations<br>with people unfamiliar with voting systems, Tied-at-Top-Covered-Disqualification-Top didn't pass the definition-<br>brevity test, but MMPO did. Adding "Everyone who doesn't rank a candidate is counted together as if they'd all<br>ranked the same candidate over hir" doesn't add significant wordiness.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br> </div></body>
</html>