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

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> MMPO:
> 
> When someone, probably Forest, proposed MMPO, I said that it was very 
> significantly better than PC, so much so that I called it a member of a 
> new generation of rank-methods.
> 
> But, now, I don’t know why I said that. Looking at the requirements for 
> offensive order-reversal to succeed, with and without defensive 
> truncation; and looking at truncation-resistance, I can’t find where 
> MMPO is any better than PC. Just as good, but not better. Of course, if, 
> as seems to be the case, MMPO is  just as good as PC, then MMPO’s more 
> briefly-worded specification would make it a better public proposal. Do 
> others agree?
> 
> Or was I right before, and is MMPO very significantly better than PC? 
> Tell me, if you know.
> 
> MMPO is certainly one of the best, along with PC, PCA, and MDD.  Maybe 
> the best, due to being more briefly-worded than PC.

What do you think of 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.