Chris--
I'll describe Forest's proposal briefly:
It's minmax margins (but it's defined as maxmin, with respect to x>y - y>x),
looking at all pairwise comparisons, rather than just at defeats.
But, instead of just x>y - y>x, it's x top or >y - y>x.
As I said in my other posting, it seems to have the same properties
as MMT. In other words, FBC, LNHa, 3P, and the (unnecessary) Mono-Add-Plump
and the (unnecessary) avoidance of electing C in Kevin's MMPO "bad"-example.
Though Mono-Add-Plump and complying in Kevin's example are unnecessary,
they avoid misguided or dishonest criticism by opponents of a reform proposal.
As I've said, maybe it's better to ask for a little less than MMPO and MDDTR,
in order to avoid the distraction that such criticisms could cause, during an
enactment campaign. --especially given that the opponents are likely to have
a lot more media money than the proponents.
Mike Ossipoff
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
