In Re-Voting-Based-on-Favorite-Method, the 4th option that I listed wouldn't be very useful, might not help at all. That's the one where the voter would indicate that s/he wants to drop from hir ranking anyone who is majority-rejected unless everyone is majority-rejected, and anyone who is beaten, unless everyone is beaten. It would be better for that voter to, instead, use the 1st option, indicating that s/he wants to move to 1st place the winner chosen by Criterion-Mitigated-IRO, or Criterion-Mitigated-Plurality. Of Course selecting Condorcet for that option would be better. *** While I'm at it, I should officially suggest this, in relation to the mitigation methods, since it's similar. It's related to my suggestion about the Presidential method by 2 methods: When people can't agree on which rank-balloting count rule to use, then the rankings should be counted by all the methods, and the pairwise results published, and a 2nd election held between the winners by all the proposed methods. I'd suggest Approval for that 2nd election, since any rank-balloting method would seem to favor one of the method proposals, and because I believe that Approval is better than the worst rank-balloting count method. And, as Don suggested, the 1st balloting could allow people to vote separate rankings for use with the various rank-balloting count methods. Since the mitigations that I've suggested are also for situations where everyne doesn't agree on what method would be best, this proposal here belongs classified with mitigation as a solution for that kind of situtation, even though it isn't really a mitigation to be used with a single bad method. I call it the Combined Method. Mike --
