Hi Juho, --- En date de : Dim 11.1.09, Juho Laatu <juho4...@yahoo.co.uk> a écrit : > > Now Mutual Majority elects {A,B,C}. > > Here words "Now Mutual Majority elects > {A,B,C}" are a bit confusing since mutual > majority doesn't set any requirements on > who should be elected (nor "elect" anyone). > ... > Maybe it would be clearer to just > say that any candidate can be elected (A, > B, C or any other).
Yes, that would be clearer. However, given the subject of the thread that this comes from, it was necessary to treat Mutual Majority as a method and not a criterion. If I thought it was a novel discovery that carelessly electing from the set of candidates permissible by Mutual Majority, could violate mono-add-plump, then I would have used better wording. Kevin Venzke ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info