 However, incentives to vote strategically may reoccur if the collectively assigned grades are used to choose one of the alternatives. As Balinski and Laraki point out, ‘[w]hen rank orderings are the principal goal instead of grades, the strategic behavior of the judges may change’ (2007: 8724), and strategy-proofness in ranking as opposed to strategy-proofness in grading is not achievable in a social grading function (ibid.), a result somewhat analogous to the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem. Note further that the collective grades alone are often insufficient to determine a unique winning alternative; two or more alternatives might each receive the same top grade. This raises to question of how to break such ties in the grades, and a number of possible criteria have been proposed. For discussion, see Fabre (2021).