Kevin,
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
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 04:49:45 +0100 (CET)
From: Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Defection, nomination disincentive, MMPO
Also, every example I've seen of MMPO's Majority failure involves
the use of four slots. It's always this scenario:
20 ABCD
20 BCAD
20 CABD
13 DABC
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:56:17 +0100 (CET)
From: Kevin Venzke
Subject: [EM] MMPO, Majority, Condorcet failures
29 B
19 AB
9 AC
43 C
CW is C, but the MMPO winner is A.
This scenario is particularly interesting because A is either
a weak centrist candidate, or else someone taking
Chris first, then Gervase.
Chris,
--- Chris Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
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
