# [EM] Kevin: Your method has truncation strategy

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sat Jan 3 23:50:01 PST 2004

```Kevin wrote:

My remarks were about MinMax (Pairwise Opposition), which elects the
candidate who minimizes the maximum votes against him in any pairwise
contest (be it victory or defeat).

Burial seems potentially effective.  But truncation doesn't appear to
be a useful strategy of any kind in "MMPO."

Defensive truncation is an effective order-reversal deterrent in MMPO, just
as in wv Condorcet ww, and for the same reason. Here's as example. It's my
standard 3-candidate IRV bad-example. In this example everyone's greatest
votes-against is in a defeat, so it's the same as PC:

Silncere preferences:

40: ABC
25: BAC
35: CBA

The A voters order-reverse against B:

40: ACB
25: BAC
35: CBA

Candidates' greatest votes-against (considering all of theiri pairwise
comparisons):

A: 25 + 35 = 60

B: 40 + 35 = 75

C: 40 + 25 = 65

A wins. The A voters' offensive order-reversal has succeeded in stealing the
election for A.

Now the B voters defensively truncate:

40: ACB
25: B
35: CBA

Now C's greatest votes-against is reduced. Now it's only 40. C wins.

The A voters have worsened their result by their offensive order-reversal.
The regret attempting it. If the B voters had announced in advance that they
weren't going to rank a 2nd choice, or if there'd been articles and
broadcasts, letters to the editor, or call-in calls recommending that B
voters not rank a 2nd choice, the A voters would know better than to attempt
the order-reversal, and B would win:

Greatest votes against when A voters truncate and B voters do not:

A: 60
B: 35
C: 65

B wins.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work —  and
yourself.   http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx

```