[EM] Name of "Weak Participation"

[Michael Ossipoff]

Weak Participation is such a natural consistency desideratum, it
probably already has a name. Maybe it's called "Mono-Add-Solo-Top". If
not, that might be a good name for it. More descriptive than "Weak
Participation".

Weak Participation:

Adding a ballot shouldn't cause the defeat of the candidate whom it
votes over all of the other candidates.

[end of Weak Participation definition]

Participation:

Voting shouldn't worsen the outcome for you.

(by changing the winner from X to Y, when you've voted X over Y)

[end of Participation definition]

Participation is stronger because it says that voting shouldn't worsen
your outcome in any way.

Weak Participation is easier to meet, and therefore worse to fail,
because it merely says that your ballot shouldn't cause your unique
voted favorite to lose.

Easier to meet, and worse to fail.

When I posted some definitions a few hours ago, I re-posted my
definitions of ICT and Symmetrical ICT. I should also tell what their
advantages are (I already have, but that should be told with the
definitions, to explain the purpose of the definitions).

ICT complies with the Condorcet Criterion, FBC, and CD.

Symmetrical ICT complies with the Condorcet Criterion, FBC, CD, 0-info
Later-No-Help, and Strong 0-info Later-No-Help. The latter two are
effectively just as good as full Later-No-Harm. With Symmetrical ICT,
there's no need to rank unacceptable candidates.

Of course it could be desirable to give voters incentive to sincerely
rank all of the candidates, including the unacceptable ones, if, in a
poll, it's desired to find the CW.

TUC won't find a CW at all reliably, due to the strategy incentives
resulting from its failure of FBC and CD.

Mike Ossipoff