[EM] MMT2 meets FBC, fails Mono-Add-Plump, as it should.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

FBC:

In MMT2, if you top-rate a compromise, along with your favorite, then you'll
be counted in the majority supporting a mutual-majority candidate set that
s/he is in.

That's because MMT2 defines "mutual-majority candidate set" as:

A set of candidates who are each voted above bottom by each member of the
same majority of voters--where that set includes at least one top-rated candidate
on the ballot of every member of that majority.

Mono-Add-Plump:

Mono-Add-Plump makes even less sense for MMT than for MDDTR.

The failure scenario is:

Your favorite wins by having the most top ratings among a mutual-majority candidate
set. Now some new voters arrive and plump for hir. As plumpers, they aren't counted
in the mutual majority. But they are counted in the total number of voters, thereby
increasing the majority requirement. No longer is there a mutual-majority candidate
set. No longer is your favorite the winner.

Is anyone claiming that that result is wrong?

Your favorite initially won only because of mutual majority support. The plumpers
declined that mutual support, as is their right. Having declined mutual support,
should it be surprising or unfair if they no longer have it?

And, by the way, with MMT, the Mono-Add-Plump "failure", and the LNHa compliance
and LNHe "failure" don't create a random-fill incentive. 

The LNHe "failure" consists only of perhaps being able to benefit from mutual majority
support.

I should say again that, henceforth, when I say "MMT", without a distinguishing number,
I'm referring to MMT2, the MMT version that I discussed above here.

I'm curious about MMMPO's compliance with FBC, LNHa and Mono-Add-Plump, and its
compliance in Kevin's MMPO bad-example--a previously unattainable combination of
properties. If MMMPO can be presented to the public in a simple, naturally and obviously
motivated manner, then it would have the advantage that it wouldn't even be necessary
to answer any Mono-Add-Plump criticism.

Mike Ossipoff

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111208/bc2dd4d6/attachment-0003.htm>