<html><head><base href="x-msg://332/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>If that one example set of votes is "bad enough" for MMPO, then how about this example for PC(wv)?</div><div><br></div><div>49 A</div><div>48 B > C<br>03 C<br><br></div><div>Juho</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>P.S. Welcome back</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On 14.10.2011, at 22.40, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="hmmessage" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; "><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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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>----<br>Election-Methods mailing list - see<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://electorama.com/em">http://electorama.com/em</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>for list info<br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>