[EM] I retract the posting about changing MTAOC conditionality. Answering a criticicism.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

MTAOC conditionality doesn't need the change that I suggested in a post a few minutes ago.

I'd believed that there'd be a problem if (in the ABE) the number of A voters + B voters
was odd. But that isn't so. If middle(x,y) is even one greater than middle(y,x), then saying
par(x,y) = "no" is consistent with the method's intent.

So I'm leaving MTAOC conditionality as it was, and retracting the "fix" that I posted
a few minutes ago.

By the way, someone objected to conditionality by mutuality, but any FBC/ABE method
that elects C in the Approval bad-example is effectively doing the same as that. That
includes the FBC/ABE proposal posted by the poster who objected to conditionality by mutuality.

Mike Ossipoff

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120109/733f0fe4/attachment-0003.htm>