[EM] Chris: MMT

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Chris:

You wrote:

...your definition of 
MMT doesn't make clear that a "majority candidate set" may contain only 
one candidate.

[endquote]

My definition doesn't say anything about how many candidates a majority
candidate set may or must contain.

That means that a majority candidate set may contain any number of 
candidates, and that includes one.

You continued:

Given that this uses 3-slot ballots, isn't it just (interpreting any 
above-Bottom rating as approval)  "Majority Approval//Top Ratings"?

*If no candidate is majority-approved elect the most top-rated 
candidate. Otherwise elect the most top-rated majority-approved candidate.*

[endquote]

No. That is not a rewording of my definition. It is not equivalent to my
definition. Your different wording has a different meaning, and quite different
results.

You continued:

But of course that fails Later-no-Harm, because it could be that if some 
voters vote A truncate then no candidate will have majority approval and 
A wins but if they vote A>B then B will have majority approval and the 
win will change to B.

[end quote]

Quite so.

Mike Ossipoff