Russ Paielli 6049awj02-at-sneakemail.com |EMlist| wrote:
I'd like to throw out a couple more ideas I've had for variations of
MMPO. I'm not certain, but I think they might retain the key properties
of MMPO.
Suggestion 1: MMPO top-two pairwise runoff
Find the top two MMPO candidates and select the one who wins the
pairwise race between them. This method uses no Approval cutoff.
Suggestion 2: MMPO/Approval runoff
This method uses an Approval cutoff and is similar to the one I
suggested a few days ago but a bit simpler. The Approval winner and the
MMPO winner have a pairwise runoff to select the final winner.
I just had another idea. Why not combine the two suggestions above? Have
a pairwise runoff between the top two MMPO candidates, then have a
runoff between that winner and the Approval winner.
Admittedly, this method is pushing the complexity envelope for public
acceptability, but if its properties are good, it might be worth
considering.
What's with all the pairwise runoffs, you ask? Well, one thing that
bothers me about MMPO is that it uses no direct information about who
wins or loses any particular pairwise contest. Could the Condorcet loser
actually win? I don't know off hand, but if so, that would be a serious
blemish.
But even if the Condorcet Loser can't win, I am still bothered by the
lack of direct head-to-head win/lose competition. It's almost like
having a football season but not keeping track of who wins or loses any
particular game, and simply giving the championship to the team that
scores the most overall points (or allows the least overall). It just
doesn't seem right.
Why not use MMPO just to narrow the field down to two candidates so no
cycles are possible? Then you can put the winner of that contest up
against the Approval winner one-on-one.
--Russ
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
