> Venzke's MMPO example
> 9999 A > B = C
> 1 A = C > B
> 1 B = C > A
> 9999 B > A = C
.
> and C wins. That seems quite counterintuitive.
.
.
Yes. C is the Condorcet loser.
But is Kevin sure that C wins in that example?
.
A is the CW. As I propose MMPO, it starts out looking for a CW. It would choose
A right away.
.
Otherwise, if MMPO didn't start out by looking for a CW, that example would
give a
tie between A and C. That wouldn't be good, because the example has only one
CW.
.
In that way, PC chooses the CW, who is A, more naturally; while MMPO can choose
the CW
only by having the CW-search added as a special rule.
.
So there's no doubt that PC chooses in a more elegant way, in that example,
though
MMPO, as I define it, chooses the CW too, due to Condorcet Criterion compliance
having been "lexocographically" added to it by me.
Maybe PC is a more natural, and therefore more winnable, proposal than MMPO.
Thanks for the example.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
