[EM] Oops! Chris is right. Yet another try at a definition.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Chris:

Yes, what I've been calling "MMT" isn't really mutual all, and it's as you describe.

Plainly this subject is not natural for me. But, for some reason, I persist anyway, when I 
perceive an important goal. 

Now I'm not sure if a genuinely mutual MMT can be written.

I want a method that only recognizes _mutual_ majorities, and I thought that MMT was that method.
No, and I'm not sure if the MMT approach can give such a method, briefly-defined.

How about this (tentatively):

A mutual-majority candidate set is a set of candidates who are each rated above-bottom by
each member of the same majority of voters--where that set of candidates contains every
candidate rated above bottom by any member of that majority of the voters.

[end of latest definition of MMT]

Mike Ossipoff