Clarification Re: [EM] (P1) and monotonicity for single-winner election systems and Condorcet.

[David Catchpole]

On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, David Catchpole wrote:

> > >> At 15:04 15.10.99 , David Catchpole wrote:
> > >> >The statement of (P1) is thus-
> > >> >
> > >> >"No change in ballots which does not effect preferences between the winner
> > >> >and other candidates should not change the outcome"
> > >> 
> > >> The above may have drafting errors in it. 
> 
> Well, yeah, on second thoughts it does have a double negative in there.
> 
> Replace the first "No" with "Any".

Well, that's OK. I was flustered and in a hurry, however, when I wrote
this message immediately below-

> Consider the amended version in something approximating your algebra,
> later on in this message.

That's the amended version of monotonicity, not "(P1)." Woops.

I'm going to send a consolidated message that starts from the beginning
again and doesn't make the mistakes like that (albeit immediately below it
there was a correct definition of my understanding of (P1)) and hopefully
doesn't baffle and anger Craig.