MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Mon Jun 6 22:53:49 PDT 2005


First of all, thanks for the comments. Of course, lack of understanding of 
the count has a lot to do with favorite-burial in a rank method. But the 
beauty of MMPO is that its advocates can emphatically assure people that 
there's absolutely no need for favorite-burial. Only a very few methods can 
guarantee that. They include MMPO, t-matrix PC, Approval, and CR. That 
property might be very valuable during the enaction campaign, but also very 
important in subsequent elections if voters can be emphatically assured that 
they never have reason to bury their favorite, so that maybe, if they all 
hear it, and if they're convinced that it's true, they won't do so.

I agree that the properties met by the fancier wv methods, but not by PC, 
aren't important enough to justify the fancier methods needed to get those 
properties. Properties such as compliance with MMC and ICC.

Likewise for MMPO, whose special advantages far outweigh the loss of MMC, 
ICC, CC and Smith.

You wrote:

What are the differences in strategic implications between PC and
MMPO?  I recall that in going from PC to MMPO you loose several
things to gain later-no-harm.

I reply:

You gain more than LNH when you trade PC for MMPO. You gain FBC. And I 
consider that be of compelling importance. What you lose when you trade PC 
for MMPO is Condorcet's Criterion. But I consider FBC to be more important 
than CC.

And, when AERLO is used with MMPO, SDSC and Strong FBC are gained.

(AERLO would give SDSC to PC, but not Strong FBC. MMPO's FBC compliance is 
what allows it to gain Strong FBC from AERLO).

It's astounding, the combination of criterion compliances that MMPO offers, 
especiallly when AERLO is added.

Mike Ossipoff

FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list