Mike is right; it should be called MaxMin instead of MinMax.
> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF > To: > Subject: [EM] Chris: Forest's FBC/ABC method > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > 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
