To me the price MMPO (MinMax Pairwise Opposition) pays for strategy benefits you describe is just far too high,
failing as it does (Mutual) Majority and Clone-Winner. (Also very unattractive to me is that it combines meeting
Later-no-harm with failing Later-no-help, and thus having a zero-information random-fill incentive.)
A method that seems to perform as well in all your 3-candidate scenarios with lots of lazy truncating voters, is
Raynaud(Gross) with the tiebreaker suggested by Gervase Lam. (It could also be called Raynaud(opposing votes)
or Max Pairwise Opposition Elimination).
This would fail Mono-raise, but at least meet Clone Independence and (Mutual) Majority. So in my view it is much
better! What do you think?
Chris Benham
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
