[EM] Kevin: Power Truncation

[Kevin Venzke]

Mike,

--- MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> a écrit :
> And so...what? You've shown that MMPOpt and maxMMPOd can give different 
> results. It's been demonstrated that different methods can give different 
> results. That's why we call them different methods.

On the ballots 49 A, 24 B, 27 C>B, I don't consider it acceptable to elect
A. So the aim of my suggestion is to keep "power truncation" from messing
up in such a basic scenario.

> By the way, in other postings you say or imply that tMMWV and your other 
> similar methods are significantly more likely to meet CC than MMPO or MMPOpt 
> is. But you haven't shown that either.

Well, the CW will always be a tMMWV or tC//A potential winner, whereas sometimes
the only potential MMPO winner is the Condorcet Loser.

> In the acceptable/unacceptable situation that we're discussing, of course 
> equal ranking in 1st place will be pretty much universal. And, depending on 
> how much lesser-of-2-evils voting will continue, with rank balloting, that 
> too would be enough, by itself, to cause lots of equal-ranking in 1st place.
> 
> For one thing, that spoils your near-CC-compliance. For another thing it 
> results in a ridiculous number of ties in public elections.

It also makes CC compliance rather irrelevant. There is no reason why
tMMWV needs to remain indecisive; just put an approval tie-breaker on the
end.

Kevin Venzke



	

	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger 
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com