<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'>
Prologue:<br><br>Here's the scenario, which I call "Kevin's MMPO bad-example:<br><br>9999: A<br>1: A=C<br>1: B=C<br>9999: B<br><br>Some object to C winning.<br><br>But note that half the voters say that C is just as good as B; and the other half say that<br>C is just as good as B.<br><br>C is hardly a Hitler. A and B are big favorites, and so, given what I said in the previous paragraph,<br>the election of C couldn't be much of a tragedy, mistake or error.<br><br>Sure, nearly everyone thinks that _someone_ is better than C. But, then, that's also true of A and B.<br>In fact, they have _more_ people saying that some particular candidate is worse. (Yes I know, that's<br>MMPO's standard, so you might accuse me of using MMPO's standard to defend MMPO. But note that you<br>brought it up, if you objected to how many people think someone is worse than C).<br><br>The objection to C's election amounts to a sleight-of-hand that fallaciously attempts to portray the set<br>[A,B] as a single aggreived "person".<br><br>What makes the above MMPO result "look bad" is it's un-plurality-like nature. In terms of favoriteness,<br>C looks terrible. But I remind you that, in general, pairwise-count methods are not about favoriteness, <br>nor are they intended or expected to be. ....even though some want to compare them by a criterion<br>that is based on favoriteness.<br><br>The trial:<br><br>Mr. A-Spokesman:<br><br>Your Honor, Mr. B-Spokesman and I, representing an aggreived group, consisting of the A voters and the B voters,<br>come here in unity to protest the election of C. We claim that it's clear that either A or B should win, and we strongly<br>believe that A or B should win, and we all strongly want A or B to win."<br><br>Judge:<br><br>Let's clarify something: Do you mean that, if A doesn't win, you want B to win instead of C? Or are you really just saying<br>that you want A to win, and the B voters want B to win?<br><br>Mr. A-Spokesman:<br><br>It's very important to all of us that, even if our favorite doesn't win, the other member of [A,B] win. Therefore it is<br>an outrage against us all if that doesn't happen.<br><br>Mr. C-Spokesman:<br><br>Your Honor, I enter into evidence exhibit A, the summary of the A-voters' ballots; and exhibit B, the summary of the<br>B-voters' ballots.<br><br>Judge:<br><br>Mr. A-Spokesman, having looked at this evidence, I must question your claim that it's very important to you that,<br>if A doesn't win, then at least B should win. The evidence clearly shows that your A group was entirely indifferent<br>between B and C. (except for one person who preferred C). Likewise, the B voters were entirely indifferent between<br>A and C. How do you answer that?<br><br>(A-Spokesman doesn't answer)<br><br>Judge continues:<br><br>Mr. A-Spokesman, I recommend that, in subsequent elections, you demonstrate, in the election, some of that<br>solidarity, mutual support, unity and common purpose that you claim, in this courtroom, to feel. <br><br>I dismiss the claims of the A voters and B voters. Case dismissed. <br><br>(Bangs gavel)<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> </div></body>
</html>