<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'>
FBC:<br><br>In MMT2, if you top-rate a compromise, along with your favorite, then you'll<br>be counted in the majority supporting a mutual-majority candidate set that<br>s/he is in.<br><br>That's because MMT2 defines "mutual-majority candidate set" as:<br><br>A set of candidates who are each voted above bottom by each member of the<br>same majority of voters--where that set includes at least one top-rated candidate<br>on the ballot of every member of that majority.<br><br>Mono-Add-Plump:<br><br>Mono-Add-Plump makes even less sense for MMT than for MDDTR.<br><br>The failure scenario is:<br><br>Your favorite wins by having the most top ratings among a mutual-majority candidate<br>set. Now some new voters arrive and plump for hir. As plumpers, they aren't counted<br>in the mutual majority. But they are counted in the total number of voters, thereby<br>increasing the majority requirement. No longer is there a mutual-majority candidate<br>set. No longer is your favorite the winner.<br><br>Is anyone claiming that that result is wrong?<br><br>Your favorite initially won only because of mutual majority support. The plumpers<br>declined that mutual support, as is their right. Having declined mutual support,<br>should it be surprising or unfair if they no longer have it?<br><br>And, by the way, with MMT, the Mono-Add-Plump "failure", and the LNHa compliance<br>and LNHe "failure" don't create a random-fill incentive. <br><br>The LNHe "failure" consists only of perhaps being able to benefit from mutual majority<br>support.<br><br>I should say again that, henceforth, when I say "MMT", without a distinguishing number,<br>I'm referring to MMT2, the MMT version that I discussed above here.<br><br>I'm curious about MMMPO's compliance with FBC, LNHa and Mono-Add-Plump, and its<br>compliance in Kevin's MMPO bad-example--a previously unattainable combination of<br>properties. If MMMPO can be presented to the public in a simple, naturally and obviously<br>motivated manner, then it would have the advantage that it wouldn't even be necessary<br>to answer any Mono-Add-Plump criticism.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br> </div></body>
</html>