Mike,
Those quotes that you attributed to Gervase Lam were actually things
I wrote.
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014320.html
To me the price MMPO (MinMax Pairwise Opposition) pays for strategy
benefits you describe is just far too high,
failing as it does (Mutual) Majority and Clone-Winner.
I've moderated my view a bit since then. Now I'd probably omit the
"far". At the time I didn't know that it meets FBC.
(Also very unattractive to me is that it combines meeting
Later-no-harm with failing Later-no-help, and thus having a
zero-information random-fill incentive.)
This is something I've changed my mind about, and would now definitely
omit the "very". The method that I currently advocate (CDTT,IRV) shares
this "flaw".
Chris Benham
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
