As Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky recently pointed out, the only difference between MAS and a rated Bucklin (that is, top median, with tiebreaker) system is that MAS doesn't explicitly state that a candidate with a majority of top-votes (2's) cannot be beaten by one without such a majority. Of course, in the real world, that rule would be highly unlikely to ever have any impact. If one candidate gets over 50% top-ratings, there is very little chance that there's another candidate who's even close to them in total score, let alone one who beats them. Still, I think Nevin's is a useful insight, because it helps tie MAS to the history of Bucklin as used in the Progressive-era US. One of the first criticisms MAS will get is that it's a recent innovation, and it needs a "track record". Saying that "it's just a form of Bucklin, and thus closely related to voting systems that were used in over a dozen US cities" is a decent comeback. Over at the MAS electowiki page <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Majority_Acceptable_Score_voting> I've fixed things up to show this link.