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

[Juho Laatu]

If that one example set of votes is "bad enough" for MMPO, then how about this example for PC(wv)?

49 A
48 B > C
03 C

Juho


P.S. Welcome back



On 14.10.2011, at 22.40, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> > 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. 
>  
> 
> 
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111014/cbbd11a6/attachment-0004.htm>