[EM] two more variations of MMPO

Chris Benham chrisbenham at bigpond.com
Fri Jun 10 00:38:35 PDT 2005

You 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.
> Comments?

Yes. Top-two runoff methods have ridiculous "turkey-raising" incentives.

> Could the Condorcet loser actually win?

Yes. MMPO has a "very mild"  Condorcet Loser problem.

> I don't know off hand, but if so, that would be a serious blemish. 

It also fails  Mutual Majority, Smith(Net),  the Plurality criterion and 
Clone-Winner.  FBC is very expensive.

> I'm not trying to spam the list, but I just thought of a more accurate 
> analogy. As I said, MMPO is a bit like having a football season but 
> not keeping track of who wins or loses any particular game. The 
> championship then goes to the team whose maximum points against in any 
> particular "game" is the lowest. 

That is a much more accurate analogy. Except that the number of  teams 
in the competition is presumably fixed, so that clones aren't an issue, 
its exactly like that.

> It just doesn't seem right. 

Well, the combination of great simplicity, Smith(Gross), Later-no-Harm, 
and Clone-Loser is attractive (to me).  But if you don't buy it, then 
keep supporting DMC  and  maybe
consider some CGTT methods.

Chris  Benham



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list