SFC, CC (Condorcet Criterion) and MMC (Mutual Majority Critrerion) are more
closely-related than one might have expected. Describing them all in the
same terms shows that relation, their similarites and their difference. And
it shows why SFC is the best of those 3 criteria.
What SFC & MMC guarantee to a sincere-voting majority:
SFC:
No one worse than the CW will win, if no one falsifies a preference.
MMC:
The winner will be someone they all prefer to the other candidates.
What CC guarantees to sincere voters:
No majority needed. The guarantee is made to all the voters. No one worse
than the CW will win, if everyone else, including yourr opponents, votes
sincerely too.
You might like CC because it makes its guarantee to all the voters, instead
of just to a majorilty. But the price of that is that it only makes that
guarantee if all the other voters vote sincerely too. That is less realistic
than FBC.
It's reasonable to make a guarantee to a majorilty only, and that makes
possible a stronger guarantee, one that doesn't applyi only if your
opponents vote sincerely.
It's been suggested that SFC should have a different name. I wouldn't want
to rename it now, becuse it's already known by the name SFC. But what would
be another good name?:
Condorcet's Criterion for Plausible Opponents (CCPO)
Condorcet's Criterion More Applicable (CCMA)
Strong Condorcet's Criteroin (SCC)
I like the last one because of its brevity. Shall we rename SFC? Which name
do you prefer?
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
