Yes, Random did meet FBC, till I posted this message. I�m adding brief wording to FBC, so that Random Candidate (RC) won�t meet FBC. Then FBC will be acting in the spirit and intent of FBC even if the method is RC.
I define two changed FBCs, for that purpose:
Non-Random FBC adds wording to the effect that the criterion only applies to nonrandom methods.
A nonrandom method is a method that ordinarily doesn�t use randomization in its choice process, but only uses randomization if, because two or more of its count sums, as could rarely happen, are the same, it either doesn�t return a winner, or it returns more than one winner.
Feel free to suggest a better definition of a nonrandom method, or to point out a problem with the above definition, if it has one. If it has one, I�ll change the definition.
Certainty FBC makes the following small wording change: Change "...s/he can get his/her best outcome..." to "...s/he can get his/her best outcome with certainty...".
Either is fine with me. I propose and advocate them both.
SARC would probably need some overhaul to achieve what Certainty FBC achieves, and so, at least for now, the only RC-proof SARC that I propose is Non-Random SARC, which only applies to nonrandom methods.
The Non-Random versions of those criteria are, of course, strictly speaking, rules-criteria. I�ve said that I don�t like rule-criteria. But when the only rules stipulation is that the method be a nonrandom method, that isn�t a rules criterion in the objecionable sense, since all the main proposals are nonrandom methods, and nonrandom methods are the only ones proposable as a first voting system reform proposal.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
