Oops! I forgot that B voters ranked C.
.
Yes, C wins, even though C has a very low Plurality score.
.
But PC isn't intended to be Plurality. In fact, none of us want Plurality,
so why should we use it for the standard for evaluating propoed
replacemens for it? Plurality is not what we want.
Hi Mike,
Nice to see you back.
--- En date de : Ven 14.10.11, MIKE OSSIPOFF a écrit :
> Venzke's MMPO example
> A > B = C
> 1 A = C > B
> 1 B = C > A
> B > A = C
.
> and C wins. That seems quite counterintuitive.
.
.
Yes. C is the Condorcet loser.
But is Kevin sure that
The biggest criticism of the Declaration of Election-Method Reform
Advocates has been that it is too long. I agree that we should educate
voters, but the Declaration is not the appropriate place to get into
lots of detail. There is a need for general-audience materials online
(as indicated in
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
>
> > A > B = C
> >1 A = C > B
> > 1 B = C > A
> > B > A = C
> Venzke's MMPO example
> A > B = C
>1 A = C > B
> 1 B = C > A
> 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 wo
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
MMPO:
When someone, probably Forest, proposed MMPO, I said that it was very
significantly better than PC, so much so that I called it a member of a
new generation of rank-methods.
But, now, I don’t know why I said that. Looking at the requirements for
offensive order-r
