On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 13:41 -0500, Dan Bishop wrote: > * Independence of Clones: FAIL. > > Consider the example election (in which A and D won) with D replaced by > D1>D2>D3: > > 33 A>D1>D2>D3>B>C > 33 B>D1>D2>D3>A>C > 32 C>D1>D2>D3>A>B > 2 D1>D2>D3>A>B>C > > The elimination order is C, B, A, D3, D2, D1. The coalition {A, D1, D2, > D3} is entitled to 1 seat, and {A, B, D1, D2, D3} is entitled to 2 > seats. The winners are D1 and D2, which gives the D clone set an extra > seat compared to the original election.
D is a condorcet winner here. D1 is a condorcet winner as well, but it seems very interesting to note that even if we eliminate a quota's worth of votes from the D supporters after declaring D1 elected, D2 would be a condorcet winner. This seems meaningful, as it implies that both D1 and D2 have distinct quotas worth of votes rating them as top preference before eliminating any nonwinning candidates - that sounds like they should win. What if we clone someone outside of this set, ie other than D1, D2, and D3? Can teaming occur then? Thanks, Scott Ritchie ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info