On May 9, 2008, at 0:56 , Jobst Heitzig wrote:
For A1,A2 to be considered clones, the ratings would have to be
something like
51: A1 100 > A2 99 > C 55 > B 0
49: B 100 > C 55 > A1 1 > A2 0
Could be also e.g.
A > C 99 > B 0
and after inserting the clones
A1 100 > A2 99 > C 98 > B 0
There are thus many cases where separating clones from non-clones is
not easy. In this example also the number of rating levels impacts
the outcome.
You also seem to think so, since you wrote:
One approach to try to avoid this problem would be to use a more
limited clone concept: candidates that are ranked/rated equal with
each others.
But that would never really occur in practice. I think one should
define
the notion "clone" like this: A1,A2 are clones if and only if on each
ballot, the difference in ratings between any pair of options is
smallest for the pair A1,A2.
Yes, this is one possible definition (that can be used to formulate
the clone criterion).
Juho
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
