[EM] Re: Later-no-harm, Mono-add-top, etc.

Chris Benham chrisbenham at bigpond.com
Sun Jan 4 03:56:01 PST 2004

On  Fri.Jan.2,2004  I  wrote:

I surmise that Margins meets Mono-add-top, because it is not burdened with meeting Plurality,
and also according to Woodall Mono-add-top and Condorcet are not incompatible.

The next day you pointed out:

"According to Woodall, Tideman(margins) has the same properties as DminAGS, which
fails Mono-add-top.  (I suppose you could dispute that, but you should have
a better reasoning than its failure of Plurality.)"

It looks like "surmise" was the right choice of word.(According to my American Merriam-Webster
it means "to imagine or infer on slight grounds".)
Yes, I may have goofed. I (it seems wrongly) imagined that Mono-add-top should be so easy to
meet that only a method saddled with some extraordinary burden would fail it.

I assume that Margins does better than WV at meeting your Earlier-no-harm/help criteria.
Am I wrong?

Chris Benham

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list