> The way I read it, it seems he suggests SFBC is too strong. If you > insist upon SFBC, you get a method that treats at least the two first > ranks equally, either directly (type 1) or indirectly (type 2). Thus you > can either insist on SFBC and have methods that treat the top two of a > voter's ranking equally, or you can relax it to FBC (and thus get MDDA > and the likes) in which case only *sometimes* do the voters need to > (have an incentive to) rank the top two equal. >
--yah, I am vaguely getting that sort of impression too. In which case, I say Small should just come out and SAY THAT. Take a clear succinct stand. Or at least offer it. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step) and math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
