<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'>
Instructions for how to make a method look bad:<br><br>Contrive an example in which the main contending candidates barely differ<br>by the method's own standard, but in which those candidates differ humungously and outrageously<br>by some other standard. In order to achieve the latter condition as strongly as possible, it's typically<br>necessary that the candidates are within one vote of eachother, in terms of the method's standard.<br><br>Then say, "Look how wrongly that method can choose!" Try to sound especially outraged when you say that,<br>as some here are already practiced at doing.<br><br>And yes, it's true: In Kevin's MMPO bad-example, A, B, and C do almost identically, in terms of MMPO's<br>own standard. No choice would be significantly worse than another in terms of that standard.<br><br>But, in terms of the favoriteness standard, they differ drastically and dramatically. <br><br>Has someone followed my above-supplied instructions? Sure. To the letter.<br><br>So, because the candidates don't significantly differ by MMPO's standard, but differ outrageously<br>by the favoriteness standard, guess which standard we notice? Yes, intuitively, you look at that<br>and say that A or B should win. The winner should come from [A,B ]. In other words, if A doesn't<br>win, then B should win. If B doesn't win, then A should win.<br><br>You know it. I know it.<br><br>Problem: The voters don't think so. (Remember them?)<br><br>Why don't the voters think so? Because that's necessary in order to create the favoriteness-outrageous outcome<br>of Kevin's MMPO bad-example. <br><br>Early on in the discussion of that example, I asked who was wronged in that bad-example.<br><br>Someone answered that the [A,B ] voters as a whole, were collectively wronged. <br><br>But, as I discussed in my previous post about this, the A voters couldn't care less whether B or C wins. Therefore,<br>it's a bit creative to say that they're wronged because B didn't win instead of C. C won precisely because and only<br>because the A voters didn't care about B vs C, and the B voters didn't care about A vs C.<br><br>In fact, strictly speaking, if you took a poll among the A voters, between B and C, C would win that poll.<br><br>It's obviously fallacious to speak of [A,B] as a "person" who has been wronged--a resort of desperation needed <br>because no one can point to a particular individual who was wronged.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br> </div></body>
</html>