[EM] Justifying my MMPO suggestion
email9648742 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 28 07:33:47 PDT 2016
I called MMPO the best method for current-conditions electorates in this
country, if they want or need ranking.
That might call for a better answer to some of the objections to MMPO.
"Current conditions" refers to dishonest, intentionally disinformational,
agenda-driven mass media, and a public who believe them.
I'm only talking about voting here, & I make no claims about what voters
Referring to Kevin's MMPO bad-example, I asked who is wronged in that
Chris gave the best answer. He said that, because the winner should be A or
B (& I agree that would make more sense),...
...then the A voters are wronged, because they have a right for A to win
with 50% probability.
For now, let's assume that's so.
The word "outrage" or "outrageous" was used. How outrageously are they
Well, all of the A voters said that C is at least as good as the other
candidate whom they'd like to win with 50% probability.
That doesn't make it very outrageous if C wins.
Yes, C might be a write-in, and might be Donald Duck, or someone widely
disliked, like Hillary Clinton.
But, if write-in are allowed, then the A voters, by not voting a 2nd
choice, are saying that _any_ write-in would be as good as A.
Astonishingly irresponsible voting? Sure.
The method's fault? No.
Surely the badness of a bad-example depends on its plausibility. This
bad-example is highly implausible.
Yes, MMPO can fail to elect a CW.
But, if there is no indifference, a CWv (voted CW) will win.
If the CWv loses because of large-scale indifference, well that just
doesn't sound very complainable.
When MMPO avoids chicken dilemma, it does so by electing A. Some complain
that that violates the Plurality Criterion.
But A is the most favorite candidate who doesn't have majority pairwise
C has about twice the pairwise opposition.
As I said, if Plurality says A shouldn't win, then Plurality is mistaken.
Yes, examples can be contrived in which MMPO does terribly by the
positional standard, of the pairwise defeats standard.
But how surprising is it if a method that doesn't use a standard does
pooorly by that standard in an example contrived to achieve that?
It's _because_ MMPO doesn't use those standards that it has its remarkable
combination of properties.
FBC, Weak CD, MAM-like strategy.
I suggest that a voting-system proposal should offer a list of methods.
...ordered by how much you recommend them.
The public &/or the initiative proposal committee could then make their own
Of course, if you include Plain MMPO in the list, then you must include
pages to tell & answer the objections that have been expressed against it.
That could greatly multiply the length of your proposal.
But, if feasible, I suggest that Plain MMPO be included because of its
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods