[EM] MMPO (IA>MPO)

[Michael Ossipoff]

I forgot to add that, for 4b, the function of negative ratings would
necessarily be adjusted so as to pass through the point (0,0).

Michael Ossipoff


On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> I have a standard that says that if a method isn't at least as resistant to
> the Burial
> strategy as the "Benham" method (if there is no CW, do IRV-style
> eliminations until
> among remaining candidates there is), then if there is a candidate X that is
> uncovered
> and positionally dominant it must elect X.
>
> The  Strategy-Free Criterion can demand that such a candidate X lose, so I
> reject the
> idea that meeting it is especially desirable.
>
> 25 A>B
> 26 B>C
> 23 C>A
> 26 C
>
> 100 ballots.
>
> B>C 51-49,  C>A 75-25,  A>B 48-26.
>
> Top Ratings:   C 49,   B 26,   A 25
> Inf. Approval: C 75,   B 51,   A 48.
> MPO:              C 51,   B 48,   A 75
>
> C is uncovered and positionally dominant, but SFC says it isn't allowed to
> win.
>
> MMPO (IA>MPO)  elects B, but if 4 of the 26 C voters change to A then C
> wins.
>
> In the example, all my favourite methods that meet the FBC and/or  Minimal
> Defense
> elect C.
>
> Chris Benham
>
>