<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Mutual-Majority-Top (MMT):<br><br>A set of candidates who are each rated above bottom by each member of the<br>same majority of the voters is a "majority candidate set".<br><br>If there are one or more majority candidate sets, then the winner is the<br>most top-rated candidate who is in a majority candidate set.<br><br>If there are no majority candidate sets, then the winner is the most<br>top-rated candidate.<br><br>[end of MMT definition]<br><br>The previous definition didn't allow for the fact that there can be overlapping<br>majorities of the voters.<br><br>MMT has the properties that I want (FBC, LNHa, ABE-non-failure, 3P), and avoids the<br>not-really-valid criticisms of Mono-Add-Plump failure and electing<br>C in Kevin's MMPO "bad"-example. <br><br>That also seems to be true of Forest's FBC/ABE-passing method, which seems<br>to act quite similarly to MMT.<br><br>MTAOC too, with the added advantage of optional unconditional middle-rating<br>support for a lesser-evil.<br><br>We're always seeking better methods, and I'd like to find out if there's a simple wording<br>that would allow voters in MMT to have the option of giving unconditional middle-rating<br>support. But if I find that, I won't make it a replacement for the current MMT. I'll give<br>it a different name.<br><br>Likewise, it would be interesting if MTAOC, or something like it, could be written with<br>a complete description in a short paragraph (though there's nothing wrong with<br>its full definition being a computer program, while having a brief verbal description).<br><br>Those two goals probably amount to about the same thing.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br> </div></body>
</html>