[EM] Name of "Weak Participation"

[Michael Ossipoff]

Chris:

IOn Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Mike Ossipoff wrote:
>
> "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]"
>
> Mono-add-Top.
>
> http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Mono-add-top_criterion

Whoever wrote that wrote that article at that link disagrees with
Woodall about the definition of Woodall's Mono-Add-Top criterion.

Here is Woodall's own definition of his Mono-Add-Top criterion (copied
from his paper):

Candidate x should not be harmed if further ballots are added that
have x top (and are otherwise arbitrary).

[end of Woodall's Mono-Add-Top definition]

Note that that is the same Mono-Add-Top definition that I'd given:

Mono-Add-Top:

Adding a ballot shouldn't cause the defeat of a candidate whom that
ballot votes at top (regardless of whatever else the ballot does, such
as vote other candidates at top).,

[end of my definition of Mono-Add-top]

My definition, that I stated earlier, was the same as Woodall's. Well,
Woodall speaks of more than one ballot, and that's better.That's
because I got it from his paper.


Mono-Add-Solo-Top is different.

Mono-Add-Solo-Top:

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

[end of definition of Mono-Add-Solo-Top]

The definition that you linked to was the definition of
Mono-Add-Solo-Top, but was not Woodall's definition of Woodall's
Mono-Add-Top.

So, has anyone seen Mono-Add-Solo-Top defined anywhere, maybe by a
different name?

Mike Ossipoff