# [EM] Kristofer: MMPO objections

C.Benham cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au
Sat Jan 14 00:53:48 PST 2012

```Forest,

I am a bit confused by the first of your two interesting suggestions:

> 1. Put 50 percent in each of the diagonal positions.  (A candidate
> would beat a clone of itself half of the
> time.)

Err.."50%" of what?

Chris Benham

Forest Simmons wrote (5 Jan 2012):

Kristopher,

I agree that Plurality failure is bad in a public proposal and hard to
defend in any case.

In the case of MMPO the question is moot because Plurality failure is so
easily fixed by either of the
following natural tweaks:

1. Put 50 percent in each of the diagonal positions.  (A candidate would
beat a clone of itself half of the
time.)

2. Put the respective truncation totals down the diagonal positions.
(These totals are the pairwise
oppositions of the Minimum Acceptable Candidate.)

With this second fix, you can also create a list of oppositions against
MAC, and if MAC's max
opposition is smaller than any other candidate's max opposition, then
various possible courses of action
exist:  (a) throw out these candidates and start over. (b) elect the
approval winner (i.e. the one with min
opposition from MAC, which is the same as the one with most opposition
against MAC). (c) use the fall
back lottery to elect the winner.

```