[EM] "No splitting rule"

[David Catchpole]

Hi Craig-

On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Craig Carey wrote:
> >With the removal of a candidate A, either-
> >
> >(i) A was one of the old winners; or
> >(ii) There's no change; or
> >(iii) Of those who rank some possible combination of winning candidates
> >including A over the old and new winning combinations, at least as many
> >prefer the old winning combination to the new winning combination as
> >prefer the new winning combination to the old winning combination (whew!)

> But Mr Catchpole wrote: "Of those who rank some possible combination of
>  winning candidates including A over the old and new...".
>  A can always be a not winning candidate in both the before and after
>  states.

A can't be in the NW, obviously- it got removed. So an OW->A transition is
absurd!