In my alternative definition of voting x over y, in the first sentence, I accidentally wrote "is" when I meant "if". Here is the posting written correctly:
Alternative definition of voting x over y: You're voting x over y if switching the names of x and y on your ballot could change the winner from x to y, but could not change the winner from y to x. [end of alternative definition of voting x over y] This avoids the "probably" or the phrase "consistent with more configurations of other voters' ballots". It's simpler and neater. Either definition would do. Of course by this #2 definition, in IRV you never really know whether you're voting x over y or y over x. No problem. My criteria still apply to IRV. A criterion-failure-example-writer can always make up a monotonic example for hir failure example.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info