[EM] MMPO vs PC addendum

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Wed Jun 8 14:37:55 PDT 2005


--- James Green-Armytage <jarmyta at antioch-college.edu> a écrit :
> Mike, you wrote:
> >Amazingly, MMPO gives protection at both ends, so that you don't need to 
> >rank someone over your favorite, but, in the other direction, you also
> >have 
> >no dis-incentive to extend your ranking as low as you want to.
> 	If this counterstrategy is important to the stability of WV, it will be
> equally important to the stability of MMPO. Thus, I argue that
> counterstrategic truncation would probably be common in MMPO. If so,
> MMPO's LNHarm compliance may be an empty victory in practice.

I don't agree. I think this changes the issue and focuses on one specific
scenario. It's not the normal situation that one needs to truncate all one's
compromises strategically; if every candidate were always a target of burial
strategy, then a weak unknown candidate would win every time.

The usual scenario that gets posted here involves supporters of one of the
two major candidates (X) taking advantage of the fact that the supporters of 
the other major candidate (Y) are expected to list X as a compromise choice.
Under MMPO, Y voters should not do that: They shouldn't list their only
serious competition as a compromise. Does that make LNHarm an "empty victory"?
I don't believe so.

Kevin Venzke


Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage pour vos mails, photos et vidéos ! 
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list