[EM] MCA fails Irrelevant Ballots (and therefore Jameson's "mono-add-antiplump")

[C.Benham]

Jameson Quinn wrote (19 Oct 2010):

>Indeed, all forms of MCA satisfy mono-add-plump (unless a non-compliant
>method is used to choose the finalists for the runoff in MCA-IR or MCA-VR).
>  
>
Yes.

>In fact, they satisfy an slightly stronger criterion, let's call it
>mono-add-antiplump. You cannot cause Y to win by adding a ballot which
>doesn't approve Y (that is, votes them at the lowest rating possible).
>  
>
Since they all fail Independence from Irrelevant Ballots, this claim 
can't be correct.

51: A>B
40: B
09: C

They all elect A, but if we add 3 ballots that plump for X the winner 
changes from A to B.


Chris Benham