>I like 3 because it's close to zero-info Approval strategy for many voters; >4 and 5 would just add more math with probably little benefit. Since 3 >already boosts your strategy threshold by throwing out candidates below >your threshold (and you can't predict which of them might still be viable), >that probably partly overcomes the few-voters situation. If you'd like me >to rank them, then I'd say 3-2-1-5-4. (If Voter's Choice were applied to a >public election I'd prefer 2, since it would be easier to explain than 3 >and >strategically probably better than 1). Ok, then let's say we'll use 3, unless anyone objects. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
