[EM] Re: Participation criterion: a thought

[Chris Benham]

Kislanko,
In response to Diana Galletly  spotting that  Consistency and 
Participation are really the same thing, you wrote (Sat.Sep.20,03) :

"..We've known that consistency is not possible in any 
ranked-ballot method for 50 years."

Do you mean "not possible in any known ranked-ballot method",or do you mean
"not (mathematically,logically or in principle)possible in any possible ranked-ballot method"?
Presumably you are using some definition of "ranked-ballot method" that doesn't include the
Borda or Plurality methods.What is it?

Can you refute Marcus Schulze's claim that Participation is met by Woodall's 
"Descending Acquiescing Coalitions" method?
Woodall gives this definition of Participation:
"The addition of a further ballot should not, for any positive whole number K, reduce the
probability that at least one candidate is elected out of the first K candidates listed on that
ballot."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/files/wood1996.pdf

That day Diana Galletly responded:
"...If I'm right in my belief that participation is a subset of
consistency then I no longer see it as a bugbear to worry about overmuch."

If it is true that Participation is incompatible with some essential standards,(and we should
therefore just "get over it"), then I think that we should also become more relaxed about
Monotonicity,because in my mind they are almost exactly the same thing.

Chris Benham