Russ, you write:
>Let me explain how I intuitively think about clones. Forget the formal
>definition and just think of clones as being perfectly identical to each
>other.
Even though it strikes some people as counter-intuitive, the formal
definition is already well-established. If you define another criterion
with a different definition but the same name ("independence of clones"),
it will be a source of confusion. (Likewise, if you use the term "clones"
in the context of voting theory to refer to something other than what Nic
Tideman defined as a clone, it will be a source of confusion.)
If you'd like to define a new criterion along the lines you describe,
please give it a new name to avoid confusion.
my best,
James
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
