Dear Kevin, you wrote (1 March 2005): > I think, in short, that the "situation" (of odds > distribution) is not relevant to FBC.
As far as I have understood FBC correctly, then it is about individual voters and not about coalitions of voters. However, an individual voter usually only changes the outcome from one decisive situation to an indecisive situation or from one indecisive situation to a decisive situation or from one indecisive situation to another indecisive situation. But an individual voter usually doesn't change an outcome from a situation where candidate A wins decisively to a situation where another candidate B wins decisively. You wrote (1 March 2005): > I have to interpret "result" to mean "the candidate > who actually got the seat," since as you have noticed, > a ranking of candidates can't usually be used to rank > probability distributions. I see more than one possible interpretation. Examples: 1. Mike uses the resolute model. (The "resolute model" says that for every possible profile the winner is determined in advance.) 2. Mike talks about coalitions of like-minded voters rather than about single voters. But then the question is whether all these like-minded voters have to vote in the same manner or whether they may vote differently. 3. For every set of candidates such that this voter strictly prefers [*] each candidate of this set to each candidate outside this set, there is a way of voting where he doesn't vote a less-liked candidate [*] over his favorite [*] and where the probability that the winner is chosen from this set is not strictly smaller than for any way of voting where he votes a less-liked candidate [*] over his favorite [*]. 4. There is a way of voting where this voter doesn't vote a less-liked candidate [*] over his favorite [*] and where for every set of candidates, such that this voter strictly prefers [*] each candidate of this set to each candidate outside this set, the probability that the winner is chosen from this set is not strictly smaller than for any way of voting where he votes a less-liked candidate [*] over his favorite [*]. [*] according to his sincere preferences You wrote (1 March 2005): > Pretending Mike agrees with my interpretation (and that > he clarifies FBC accordingly), do you think FBC would > then be unambiguous? Your question is quite hypothetic because Mike will never clarify his definitions. Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info