If that one example set of votes is "bad enough" for MMPO, then how about this example for PC(wv)?
49 A 48 B > C 03 C Juho P.S. Welcome back On 14.10.2011, at 22.40, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: > > 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
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
