Clone-Winner: Cloning a candidate who has a positive probability of election should not help any other candidate.
Clone-Loser: Cloning a candidate who has a zero probability of election should not change the result of the election. More precisely, I think this means all victory-probabilities are unaltered. Clone-immune: satisfy both of the above. Douglas R. Woodall: Monotonicity of Single-seat Preferential Election Rules, Discrete Applied Mathematics 77,1 (1997) 81-98. I think these are good. However, I feel that Woodall's criteria were too weak. It seems to me you could strengthen them by adding, e.g. Clone-unequal: cloning a candidate B who is never ranked equal to any other in any ballot, leaves all election-probabilities unaltered (eexcept for splitup among the clones). to the defintn of "clone-immune." Also, I think when dealing with range-type ballots we should pre-assume an infinitesimally small random pre-perturbatio of all votes, so we don't have to concern ourselvs with exact ties, etc (reduces to zero probability) - I here as usual speak of continuum range voting. Warren D Smith http://rangevoting.org ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
