[EM] MMPO objections

[Michael Ossipoff]

(Sent as a forwarded message,)
On Sep 17, 2016 12:52 PM, "Michael Ossipoff" <email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Though NEO, so far, to me at least, seems to show promise, it hasn't been
thoroughly checked out enough to be a proposal.
>
> But it's different with MMPO. We've heard people's best arguments against
MMPO, & it can be said to have  already been well-discussed.
>
> No rank method's result will always look right. All will sometimes do
something ridiculous.
>
> A method optimized for 1 purpose or standard can't do well by other
standards.
>
> MMPO achieves what it achieves by looking only at pairwise
unpreferredness.
>
> It isn't a positional method, & so you can find an example in which it
does terribly, positionally.
>
> In Kevin's bad-example, it chooses someone twice as bottom-voted as the
other candidates, & nearly not top-voted at all.
>
> It certainly isn't a positional method
>
> MMPO isn't a pairwise-defeats method. So you can find an example where it
does terribly by pairwise defeats.
>
> In Kevin's example, it elects the Condorcet loser, who pairwise loses to
the others by 1000 to 1, if X = 1000.
>
> It certainly isn't a pairwise defeats method.
>
> We've been looking at pairwise defeats methods for so long that we tend,
maybe subconsciously, to evaluate by pairwise defeats standards.
>
> A "beats-diagram" shows
> an "=" sign between A & B. They have no defeat, but C has one.
>
> But look under that "=" sign. Half the voters bottom-vote A, & the other
half bottom-end vote B.
>
> Say two groups both despise eachother. Does that mutual despising cancel
out, making both groups un-despised?
>
> But that's the fallacy that the beats-diagram & its "=" sign allows you
to believe.
>
> If the A voters voted among themselves, between B & C, they'd choose C.
>
> If the B voters voted among themselves, between A & C, they'd choose C.
>
> C is the compromise preferred by the A voters, & by the C voters, to
eachother's candidates.
>
> Yes, it's natural to reject a low-favoriteness compromise. Rob Richie
would be proud.
>
> Of course this bad-example makes that compromise as little top-voted as
possible.
>
> I've told, here, why the bad-example isn't as bad as you think.
>
> It doesn't look good by standards other than the one by which it achieves
the elusive goal of MAM-like strategy, without chicken-dilemma.
>
> Distinguish between a harmless election of a low favoriteness compromise,
a compromise outcome that looks bad to an outside observer vs an actual
practical problem, one that will routinely
> make strategy problems for voters, and give tangibly (not just
aesthetically) bad results.
>
> When proposing better voting to a community of jurisdiction, of whatever
size, offer them a list of methods, telling the objections to each, & their
answers.   ...& telling the advantages of each.
>
> It would be irresponsible to leave out one with an impressive, unique,
powerful combination of strategy advantages.
>
> Let the community, jts voters &/or the initiative proposal committee
choose for themselves. It isn't necessary to make decisions for them.
>
> Michael Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160917/130618cf/attachment.htm>