Here's why I think this revision might handle clones better:
Suppose that from favorite to detested your slot viabilities are
2,1,6,5,4,3
It could be that your two favorite slots represent clones from your party,
and the other four slots represent clones from another party that ran more
clones,
Here's a rule that agrees with the MinMax (third refinement) rule for five
and fewer slots, but might be more clone proof in general:
We seek to find two adjacent slots to merge in a list of slots of various
viabilities.
Let X be the slot not in the center of the list with the greatest
viability.
Forest,
I tried out my suggestion and it worked incredibly badly. The given odds
seemed very exaggerated for unviable candidates; it suggested to almost
every faction that its expectation was near midrange. I tinkered with exponents
to exaggerate higher-ranked candidates, but I didn't get much i
Thanks for the suggestions.
I'm open to new ideas for measuring candidate viability at the various
stages, but I am wary of methods that use probabilities to compute
expectations, because it is very tricky to pin down the precise
probabilities that some candidate will eventually win.
That's the m
I have a decent idea for a refinement, which might permit CR to boil down
to Approval ballots filled out per the Better-Than-Expectation strategy.
You could also do the Maximum Power strategy.
Suppose there are two factions that vote roughly as follows:
50%: A 10, others 0
50%: B 10, C 10, others
