[EM] "Mutual Plurality" criterion suggestion

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 05/06/2018 04:38 PM, Chris Benham wrote:
> Greg,
> 
> I'm glad you like my idea.
> 
> I'm sure the definition could be polished and/or made more succinct. At 
> the moment I don't have a strong view on your suggestion
> on how that should be done. In general I don't mind the odd redundancy 
> if it makes it more likely that more people will understand it.
> 
> I won't be dying in a ditch for the "Mutual Plurality" name, but I think 
> your "Undefeated coalition" suggestion is a bit misleading
> and vague.
> 
> It was conceived as an irrelevant-ballot independent version of Mutual 
> Majority, so I suppose it could be called "Irrelevant-Ballot
> Independent Mutual Majority".  Another possible clumsy name: "Mutual 
> Dominant Relative Majority"?
> 
>> It's clear to me that the Smith set is always a subset of every 
>> "mutual plurality" set, right?
> 
> Yes, but of course there isn't always a "Mutual Plurality" set (or 
> subset) while there is always a Smith set.

Isn't the set of all candidates always a Mutual Plurality set, in a 
vacuously true sense?