Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> Hearing my criteria, someone knows what’s being said in terms of > real-world concerns, terms, and considerations. > > The same cannot be said for your fictitious rankings system. > > Can I give your system an abbreviation, since I refer to it often in > this message?: > > Fictitiously Assumed Ranking Criteria System (FARCS) > > Ok now let me clarify that I’m only calling it _your_ system, or > Chris’s system for convenience. . I’ve been told that FARCS is the > standard academic approach to criteria involving preference, as their > way of trying to avoid preference.. “Oh, say no more, where do I sign > up?” > > That’s why you and Chris like it. I think Douglas Woodall just considers that in his "preferential election rule (PER) universe" all ballots are ranked ballots with truncation allowed and above-bottom equal ranking not, but on occasion he has specified exceptions where truncation isn't allowed either. He interprets/analyses plurality as "First-Preference Plurality" (FPP) that allows voters to enter lower preferences but ignores them, and Approval as a ranked-ballot method that allows truncation and interprets all ranked candidates as approved. I'll get around to posting a "precise definition" of a "criteria system" I like. Chris Benham ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
