Chris:
Yes, what I've been calling "MMT" isn't really mutual all, and it's as you
describe.
Plainly this subject is not natural for me. But, for some reason, I persist
anyway, when I
perceive an important goal.
Now I'm not sure if a genuinely mutual MMT can be written.
I want a method that only recognizes _mutual_ majorities, and I thought that
MMT was that method.
No, and I'm not sure if the MMT approach can give such a method,
briefly-defined.
How about this (tentatively):
A mutual-majority candidate set is a set of candidates who are each rated
above-bottom by
each member of the same majority of voters--where that set of candidates
contains every
candidate rated above bottom by any member of that majority of the voters.
[end of latest definition of MMT]
Mike Ossipoff
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
