[EM] "Beatpath GMC" compliance a mistaken standard? JL

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Juho,

--- En date de : Dim 11.1.09, Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk> a écrit :
> > Now Mutual Majority elects {A,B,C}.
> 
> Here words "Now Mutual Majority elects
> {A,B,C}" are a bit confusing since mutual
> majority doesn't set any requirements on
> who should be elected (nor "elect" anyone).
> ...
> Maybe it would be clearer to just
> say that any candidate can be elected (A,
> B, C or any other).

Yes, that would be clearer. However, given the subject of the thread
that this comes from, it was necessary to treat Mutual Majority as a 
method and not a criterion.

If I thought it was a novel discovery that carelessly electing from
the set of candidates permissible by Mutual Majority, could violate
mono-add-plump, then I would have used better wording.

Kevin Venzke