[EM] MMT: You're evading my questions. I didn't ask for repetition about generalities.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Chris:

You said:

In an earlier message of yours (the last one I responded to) you wrote:

> MAMT is an addition to the list of FBC/ABE methods to choose from. 
> People should be looking into its properties. Tell me what you know, 
> so far, about its properties, ...


That is almost the only thing I did. You didn't ask me to confine myself 
to properties that I personally think are *important* or to explain why 
I think they are important.

[endquote]

I wasn't criticizing you there. I was merely asking Forest about MAMT.

 > You said that MMT fails Later-No-Help:
>
>  With MMT, you can help your favorite by entering into a mutually-chosen,
>  mutually-supported, majority coalition. Everyone supporting that 
> coalition
>  does so because they consider it beneficial to their interest.
>
>  How is that a "failure"??

You replied:
 
I assume you know what the criterion specifies and are asking me why 
meeting Later-no-Help is a good thing.

[endquote]

You assume wrong. I meant what I said. Re-read the last two paragraphs of mine
that you quoted above. If you don't have an answer to it, then that's ok. I
accept that you don't.

No, I'm not asking you about generalities regarding a criterion. I'm asking
specifically who is wronged by the situation that I described.

You continued:

Failing LNHelp while meeting 
LHHarm creates a random-fill incentive.
 One of the problems with that is 
that is unfair to sincere truncators. Why should they be penalised for 
declining to play silly games with candidates they don't care about?
Another is that all methods that fail LNHelp are vulnerable to Burial 
strategy.

[endquote]

That's what I mean by repetition of generalities such as your criteria,
and such as "unfair to sincere truncators" and "burial strategy", etc.

I asked you specifically about situations with MMT. I asked who is wronged therein.
I didn't ask for repetition about generalities.

I've told why your criteria, and your terms such as those in the paragraph before
last, don't describe problems with MMT results and situations.


 > You said that MMT fails Mutual Dominant 3rd:
>
>  I don't know what that criterion is.

It is a weakened version of Smith that is compatible with LNHelp 
compliance (and so Burial Invulnerability) and also compliance with 
LNHarm. It says that that if there is a subset S of candidates that on 
more than a third of the ballots are voted strictly above all the 
outside-S candidates and all the S candidates pairwise-beat all the 
outside-S candidates then the winner must come from S.

 From your recent past statements I know I don't have to sell the 
desirability of compliance with this to you. I gave this example:

49: A
48: B
03: C>B

I can't take seriously any method that doesn't elect B here. Can you?  
Isn't this just the sort of small (probably wing) "spoiler" scenario 
that motivates many to support electoral reform?

[endquote]

B pairwise beats A, and is CW. Condorcet's Criterion is incompatible
with FBC. Various different FBC-complying methods, and especially FBC/ABE
methods, will fail CC in various ways, some CC failures being bigger than
others--a matter of degree. But they all fail CC. Maybe you're a strict
Condorcetist, and I don't criticize you for that. We needn't all have the
same goals, values and purposes.

In your example, there's something favoring A and there's something favoting B.
A is better in 1st choice ratings. B has more (1st place + 2nd place) support. It's
a toss-up, unless your goal is to elect the pairwise winner and the CW.

 > You said that MMT fails Mono-Add-Plump:
>
>  I've already commented on that a few times.


Yes, and I obliquely responded to your comment. But to be blunt, if 
failure of Mono-add-Plump isn't self-evidently *completely ridiculous* 
(and so much so that anything not compatible with Mono-add-Plump 
compliance is thereby made a complete nonsense of), then I have no idea 
what is.

[endquote]

Not good enough. I asked you specifically what is wrong with situations and
results that I described for MMT. 

Angry noises may serve to vent your anger, but they don't answer my question.

Could it be that you're evading my questions about what is wrong, unfair
or surprising about the MMT situations and results that I asked you about?

You continued:


This doesn't come anywhere near cutting it:

> 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?

Is it "surprising or unfair" that some new voters should in effect have 
their ballots given negative weight because they refused to play silly 
games with some candidates they weren't interested in and maybe knew 
nothing about? 

Err....*yes*.


[endquote]

Err...You mean "silly games like mutual majority coalition support? :-)

If they think that is silly, then they certainly have the right to decline it...
and then not benefit from it.


Mike Ossipoff