Russ,
You 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.
Comments?
Yes. Top-two runoff methods have ridiculous "turkey-raising" incentives.
Could the Condorcet loser actually win?
Yes. MMPO has a "very mild" Condorcet Loser problem.
I don't know off hand, but if so, that would be a serious blemish.
It also fails Mutual Majority, Smith(Net), the Plurality criterion and
Clone-Winner. FBC is very expensive.
I'm not trying to spam the list, but I just thought of a more accurate
analogy. As I said, MMPO is a bit like having a football season but
not keeping track of who wins or loses any particular game. The
championship then goes to the team whose maximum points against in any
particular "game" is the lowest.
That is a much more accurate analogy. Except that the number of teams
in the competition is presumably fixed, so that clones aren't an issue,
its exactly like that.
It just doesn't seem right.
Well, the combination of great simplicity, Smith(Gross), Later-no-Harm,
and Clone-Loser is attractive (to me). But if you don't buy it, then
keep supporting DMC and maybe
consider some CGTT methods.
Chris Benham
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014303.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014310.html
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
