precision improvement

[Mike Ossipoff]

This is an improvement on my recent message entitled "Generalized Majority
Criterion". That message hasn't posted yet, but, right after sending it
I realized that I could be criticized for imprecision, and so I'm sending
this correction. 

Instead of speaking of a majority being able to get a result that its
members want (the election of an alternative or the non-election of any
1 or more alternatives), it would be more precise to speak of a majority
who prefer the alternative(s) of set S1 to the alternative(s) of set S2
being able to ensure that the winner won't come from S2. With that change,
for both paragraphs of the criterion in my previous posting "Generalized
Majority Criterion", that criterion is more precisely stated.

Note that nothing is said about S1 & S2, together, taking in all of
the alternatives in the election. This is what makes this crtiterion
important for many more ordinary & general situations than the Mutual
Majority Criterion, and this is what really qualifies this criterion
for the word "generalized".


Mike Ossipoff


--