MMPO's FBC compliance somes from its stark simplicity and the fact that it
ignores who beats whom. But cycles are about who beats whom. Maybe FBC
compliance is as easy to lose as it is difficult to gain.
For me, those things suggest that it isn't obvious that cycle-collapsing
doesn't spoil MMPO's FBC compliance, but I don't claim to know one way or
the other.
If the cycle-collapsing does spoil the FBC compliance, then maybe FBC is
incompatible with ICC and MMC. If so, then I choose FBC over ICC and MMC,
just as I choose it over CC and Smith.
CC, Smith, ICC, and MMC aren't completely unrleated to strategy. They're
each about something that should be so if everyone votes sincerely. If
everyone votes sincerely? Good luck. The evidence so far suggests that in
public elections people are not inclined to vote sincerely. Even when
they're using a method (in Australia) that meets MMC and ICC. In fact
there's a tendency to deviate from sincerity in the most drastic way.
With the most timid, giveaway-prone lesser-of-2-evils voters, you must offer
them the strongest reassuring guarantee. A guarantee for them as an
individual, independent of how anyone else votes, a guarantee that they
won't have to do the most extreme form of giveaway voting, no matter what.
If there's anything that can reassure people to not bury their favorite,
it's FBC.
And when it comes with SFC, and (with AERLO) SDSC and Strong FBC, so much
the better.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
