[EM] Reply to December MMPO comments

MIKE OSSIPOFF 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.

I reply:

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.

Gervase continued:

>>(Also very
>>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 
they're indifferent.

Mike Ossipoff

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list