[EM] Reply to December MMPO comments
chrisbenham at bigpond.com
Mon May 30 00:31:52 PDT 2005
Those quotes that you attributed to Gervase Lam were actually things
> 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've moderated my view a bit since then. Now I'd probably omit the
"far". At the time I didn't know that it meets FBC.
> (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.)
This is something I've changed my mind about, and would now definitely
omit the "very". The method that I currently advocate (CDTT,IRV) shares
More information about the Election-Methods