> At 10:30 AM -0400 4/27/04, Ken Taylor wrote: > > > At 10:21 AM -0400 4/27/04, Ken Taylor wrote: > >> >I'm dropping the weakest candidate, as defined by number of first > >> >choice votes, which causes all their defeats of other candidates > >> >to be dropped. > >> > >> What will you do when two or more candidates are tied for least first > >> choice votes? > >> > > > >I'm not sure. There are probably several different ways to deal with this, > >and I don't think it's very relevant to evaluating the procedure in general. > > If you were to drop all candidates tied for least first choice votes, > it seems possible that your method could not claim to be cloneproof. > Two or more clones could evenly split the vote and then all be > eliminated even if they, in combination, had > 50% of the vote, > implying that one of the clones should win. >
Ahhh this is a good point. I may have underestimated the impact that a tie-resolution strategy could have. Though, the larger the election, the less likely that such a tie could occur. I'm still curious as to my original question -- has this overall method been proposed before, and what possible weakness does it have (assuming that the tie-for-last-place problem can be solved)? Ken ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info