[EM] two more variations of MMPO

Russ Paielli 6049awj02 at sneakemail.com
Thu Jun 9 21:13:00 PDT 2005

Russ Paielli 6049awj02-at-sneakemail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> I'd like to throw out a couple more ideas I've had for variations of 
> MMPO. I'm not certain, but I think they might retain the key properties 
> of MMPO.
> Suggestion 1: MMPO top-two pairwise runoff
> Find the top two MMPO candidates and select the one who wins the 
> pairwise race between them. This method uses no Approval cutoff.
> Suggestion 2: MMPO/Approval runoff
> This method uses an Approval cutoff and is similar to the one I 
> suggested a few days ago but a bit simpler. The Approval winner and the 
> MMPO winner have a pairwise runoff to select the final winner.

I just had another idea. Why not combine the two suggestions above? Have 
a pairwise runoff between the top two MMPO candidates, then have a 
runoff between that winner and the Approval winner.

Admittedly, this method is pushing the complexity envelope for public 
acceptability, but if its properties are good, it might be worth 

What's with all the pairwise runoffs, you ask? Well, one thing that 
bothers me about MMPO is that it uses no direct information about who 
wins or loses any particular pairwise contest. Could the Condorcet loser 
actually win? I don't know off hand, but if so, that would be a serious 

But even if the Condorcet Loser can't win, I am still bothered by the 
lack of direct head-to-head win/lose competition. It's almost like 
having a football season but not keeping track of who wins or loses any 
particular game, and simply giving the championship to the team that 
scores the most overall points (or allows the least overall). It just 
doesn't seem right.

Why not use MMPO just to narrow the field down to two candidates so no 
cycles are possible? Then you can put the winner of that contest up 
against the Approval winner one-on-one.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list