[EM] Comments on the declaration and on a few voting systems

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 14 12:40:40 PDT 2011

> Venzke's MMPO example

> 9999 A > B = C
>    1 A = C > B
>   1 B = C > A
> 9999 B > A = C
> and C wins. That seems quite counterintuitive.
Yes. C is the Condorcet loser.
But is Kevin sure that C wins in that example?
A is the CW. As I propose MMPO, it starts out looking for a CW. It would choose
A right away.
Otherwise, if MMPO didn't start out by looking for a CW, that example would give a 
tie between A and C. That wouldn't be good, because the example has only one CW. 
In that way, PC chooses the CW, who is A, more naturally; while MMPO can choose the CW
only by having the CW-search added as a special rule.
So there's no doubt that PC chooses in a more elegant way, in that example, though
MMPO, as I define it, chooses the CW too, due to Condorcet Criterion compliance
having been "lexocographically" added to it by me.
Maybe PC is a more natural, and therefore more winnable, proposal than MMPO.
Thanks for the example. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111014/2988e393/attachment.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list