Yes, Random did meet FBC, till I posted this message. Iīm adding brief wording to FBC, so that Random Candidate (RC) wonīt meet FBC. Then FBC will be acting in the spirit and intent of FBC even if the method is RC.
I define two changed FBCs, for that purpose:
Non-Random FBC adds wording to the effect that the criterion only applies to nonrandom methods.
A nonrandom method is a method that ordinarily doesnīt use randomization in its choice process, but only uses randomization if, because two or more of its count sums, as could rarely happen, are the same, it either doesnīt return a winner, or it returns more than one winner.
Feel free to suggest a better definition of a nonrandom method, or to point out a problem with the above definition, if it has one. If it has one, Iīll change the definition.
Certainty FBC makes the following small wording change: Change "...s/he can get his/her best outcome..." to "...s/he can get his/her best outcome with certainty...".
Either is fine with me. I propose and advocate them both.
SARC would probably need some overhaul to achieve what Certainty FBC achieves, and so, at least for now, the only RC-proof SARC that I propose is Non-Random SARC, which only applies to nonrandom methods.
The Non-Random versions of those criteria are, of course, strictly speaking, rules-criteria. Iīve said that I donīt like rule-criteria. But when the only rules stipulation is that the method be a nonrandom method, that isnīt a rules criterion in the objecionable sense, since all the main proposals are nonrandom methods, and nonrandom methods are the only ones proposable as a first voting system reform proposal.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
