Yes, MAMPO looks like it belongs at the top of the simple alternative rank
methods, just below SSD, in my list of methods to propose. So now this is my
method proposing-order:
1. SSD
2. MAMPO
3. MDDA
4. MDDB
5. MMPO
6. PC
7. Smith//PC
8. SR
Of course its no surprise that, being better than the other simple
alternative methods, MAMPO Is also less simple than they are. Well, thats
why I list a succession of proposals, starting with the best, proceeding in
the direction of simpler and more briefly-defined.
You mentioned, a few years ago, that MMPO had a problem, and, as a result of
that problem, we dropped MMPO. What was that problem?
Whatever it is, how bad could MMPO be? Its definition is as brief as that of
SR, but MMPO meets more criteria that I like.
MinMax(Pairwise-Opposition) (MMPO):
Elect the candidate compared to whom each one of the other candidates has
someone ranked over him/her by more voters.
[end of MMPO definition]
With that super-brief definition, combined with MMPOs criteria compliances,
MMPO Is a good proposal, no matter what that problem was.
No doubt some or most of these simple alternative rank methods fail
Plurality and Condorcet Loser. But, as Ive said before about PC and
Condorcet Loser, What a remarkably un-disliked Pliurality and Condorcet
Loser that MMPO winner must be!
Though I dont consider compliance with the Plurality Criterion essential,
MAMPOs compliance with Plurality, in addition to FBC, SFC, & SDSC, makes
MAMPO more deluxe than the methods that I list below it in my succession of
proposals.
Mike Ossipoff
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
