> MMPO isn't usually defined as a Condorcet method, though it is very nearly
> one.
.
Ok, then, as usually defined, MMPO does what that example shows it doing. But,
with an initial CW search, it does very much like PC.
.
>From the criteria standpoint, MMPO was attractive because it satisfied weak FBC
> as well as Later-no-harm. It also satisfies SFC, and in the three-candidate
> case,
> it won't fail SDSC.
.
I'd forgotten that MMPO (and maybe PC?) could fail SDSC in larger elections.
I've been
away for quite a while.
.
> the defensive truncation strategy is still viable and
> recommended (by me, anyway).
Certainly. Defensive truncation is what thwarts offensive order-reversal so well
in the wv methods and in MMPO.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
