[EM] Reply to December MMPO comments
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sun May 29 21:55:32 PDT 2005
Gervase Lam said, in December:
>>To me the price MMPO (MinMax Pairwise Opposition) pays for strategy
>>benefits you describe is just far too high,
>>failing as it does (Mutual) Majority and Clone-Winner.
Of course that's in idividual choice, and maybe MMC & CL are more important
to you than are the impressive list of criteria met by MMPO. Yesterday (long
after Gervase's posting), I commented on those criterion failures. The wv
methods don't easily or often fail FBC. So the choice depends on what you
want to absolutely guarantee, and what you will settle for unlikeliness of
failing. Experience strongly suggests that voters need an absolute FBC
guarantee, or else they'll continue burying their favorite.
>>unattractive to me is that it combines meeting
>>Later-no-harm with failing Later-no-help, and thus having a
>>zero-information random-fill incentive.)
You've got to be kidding. Wouldn't it be nice if voters had nothing more to
worry about than an incentive to randomly fill in candidates about whom
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
More information about the Election-Methods