[EM] Re: minmax is not a good public election method

[Russ Paielli]

Kevin Venzke stepjak-at-yahoo.fr |EMlist| wrote:
> Russ,
> 
> I was quite wrong about MMPO being unable to elect the Condorcet Loser unless
> all candidates have a majority-strength loss. As an example,
> 
> 48 A
> 2 B=A
> 2 B=C
> 48 C
> 
> MMPO elects B decisively. So MMPO fails Plurality even worse than I thought.
> I don't know how I forgot this; two-slot MMPO was the first method I advocated
> on this list, and I knew it had this problem then.

Kevin,
Let me just add one more point, which may be obvious. I had a hunch that 
some some strange results could occur with MMPO. Why? Because it chooses 
the winner based solely on the number of votes *against* each candidate. 
It does not even consider the number of votes *for* the candidates. 
Something seemed seriously out of balance. Hence the case you cite 
above, in which a candidate wins with only 4 non-last-place votes out of 
100 votes. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted!

--Russ