How about this for independence of clone criteria that are compatible with Droop proportionality?
Cloning a winning candidate should not turn a loosing candidate into a winner. Cloning a loosing candidate should not turn a winning candidate into a looser. --- On Mon, 4/8/13, Ross Hyman <rahy...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > From: Ross Hyman <rahy...@sbcglobal.net> > Subject: Clone properties for proportional representation > To: election-meth...@electorama.com > Date: Monday, April 8, 2013, 5:47 PM > I think that the clone properties to > look for in proportional representation methods are: > > Increasing the clones in a clone set should not decrease the > number of winners from the clone set and should not make a > looser that is outside the clone set into a winner. > and > Decreasing the clones in a clone set should not increase the > number of winners from the clone set and should not make a > winner that is outside the clone set into a looser. > > I don't know if the STV method I proposed or other STV > methods that derive from clone-proof single winner methods > satisfies these or not. > > > > > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info