<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
> Venzke's MMPO example<BR><BR>> 9999 A > B = C<BR>> 1 A = C > B<BR>> 1 B = C > A<BR>> 9999 B > A = C<BR>.<BR>> and C wins. That seems quite counterintuitive.<BR>
.<BR>
.<BR>
Yes. C is the Condorcet loser.<BR>
<BR>
But is Kevin sure that C wins in that example?<BR>
.<BR>
A is the CW. As I propose MMPO, it starts out looking for a CW. It would choose<BR>
A right away.<BR>
.<BR>
Otherwise, if MMPO didn't start out by looking for a CW, that example would give a <BR>
tie between A and C. That wouldn't be good, because the example has only one CW. <BR>
.<BR>
In that way, PC chooses the CW, who is A, more naturally; while MMPO can choose the CW<BR>
only by having the CW-search added as a special rule.<BR>
.<BR>
So there's no doubt that PC chooses in a more elegant way, in that example, though<BR>
MMPO, as I define it, chooses the CW too, due to Condorcet Criterion compliance<BR>
having been "lexocographically" added to it by me.<BR>
<BR>
Maybe PC is a more natural, and therefore more winnable, proposal than MMPO.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks for the example. <BR>
<BR><BR><BR> </div></body>
</html>