Lately I’ve been referring to a more particular mutual-majority than the solid-coalition: A top-mutual-majority is a mutual majority, a solid coalition, for which the set of candidates that they all prefer to everyone else consists of the set containing the favorite candidate of each of them. I guess, then, any method meeting MMC would meet top-MMC, but not vice-versa, which, then, means top-MMC is weaker I’ve lately been using “mutual-majority” to mean “top-mutual-majority”… …when I say that Hare always chooses from a mutual-majority when there is one. According to Electowiki, Hare also always chooses from a solid coalition when there is one. Burlington, Alaska & many polls suggest that our electorate, the progressives are the top-mutual-majority. …& therefore can’t lose in Hare.

One way to say it: If wv would make a good choice when it elects the CW, then we have confidence in the CW’s voters, the median voters. Then surely we have confidence in their 2nd-choice too.. the direction in which they send the win if the CW is eliminated. As I said, there’s good reason to believe the win will be sent in the progressive direction. …especially relevant given wv’s prohibitive count-task, which endangers count-fraud security. I mentioned tha Hare’s handcount doesn’t require any more votecounting than that of Approval…making handcount-audit JGA’s feasible. But Approval still has a less complicated count, making it better for count-fraud detection & prevention. Approval is my favorite for that reason, & for its minimalness, & easiest definition, explanation, proposal, enactment, implementation (zero-cost), & administration. On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 23:54 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > > Lately I’ve been referring to a more particular mutual-majority than the > solid-coalition: > > A top-mutual-majority is a mutual majority, a solid coalition, for which > the set of candidates that they all prefer to everyone else consists of the > set containing the favorite candidate of each of them. > > I guess, then, any method meeting MMC would meet top-MMC, but not > vice-versa, which, then, means top-MMC is weaker > > I’ve lately been using “mutual-majority” to mean “top-mutual-majority”… > > …when I say that Hare always chooses from a mutual-majority when there is > one. > > According to Electowiki, Hare also always chooses from a solid coalition > when there is one. > > Burlington, Alaska & many polls suggest that our electorate, the > progressives are the top-mutual-majority. > > …& therefore can’t lose in Hare. > > > >

MIchael, to make sure I understand your definition, could you give an example of a method that meets top-MMC and not MMC and an example election in which it does? On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 4:25 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > One way to say it: > > If wv would make a good choice when it elects the CW, then we have > confidence in the CW’s voters, the median voters. > > Then surely we have confidence in their 2nd-choice too.. the direction in > which they send the win if the CW is eliminated. > > As I said, there’s good reason to believe the win will be sent in the > progressive direction. > > …especially relevant given wv’s prohibitive count-task, which endangers > count-fraud security. > > I mentioned tha Hare’s handcount doesn’t require any more votecounting > than that of Approval…making handcount-audit JGA’s feasible. > > But Approval still has a less complicated count, making it better for > count-fraud detection & prevention. > > Approval is my favorite for that reason, & for its minimalness, & easiest > definition, explanation, proposal, enactment, implementation (zero-cost), & > administration. > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 23:54 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> Lately I’ve been referring to a more particular mutual-majority than the >> solid-coalition: >> >> A top-mutual-majority is a mutual majority, a solid coalition, for which >> the set of candidates that they all prefer to everyone else consists of the >> set containing the favorite candidate of each of them. >> >> I guess, then, any method meeting MMC would meet top-MMC, but not >> vice-versa, which, then, means top-MMC is weaker >> >> I’ve lately been using “mutual-majority” to mean “top-mutual-majority”… >> >> …when I say that Hare always chooses from a mutual-majority when there is >> one. >> >> According to Electowiki, Hare also always chooses from a solid coalition >> when there is one. >> >> Burlington, Alaska & many polls suggest that our electorate, the >> progressives are the top-mutual-majority. >> >> …& therefore can’t lose in Hare. >> >> >> >> ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info > -- *Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director* Voter Choice Massachusetts e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org p :: 617.835.9161 w :: voterchoicema.org <https://www.voterchoicema.org/> :: Follow us on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/yeson2rcv> and Twitter <https://twitter.com/yeson2rcv> ::