On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Markus Schulze wrote: > Dear Forest, > > you wrote (4 Feb 2002): > > It seems to me that election methods can potentially have two kinds of > > problems with clones: (1) Some methods tend to give an advantage to > > parties that runs lots of clones. (2) Other methods tend to penalize > > parties that run lots of clones. > > Actually, there are three problems with clones. Blake Cretney > calls these problems "teaming," "crowding" and "vote-splitting": > http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/harrow/124/defn.html > > IRV is immune from all three clone strategies.
Well, I guess my lack of clone expertise is showing :-) > > ****** > > You wrote (4 Feb 2002): > > Nurmi rates both Top Two Runoff and IRV at level IV (Roman Numeral Four) > > in his classification. Approval is rated at level II, which means he > > considers Approval two levels more manipulable than IRV, because Approval > > strategy is that much simpler. But you are right that Nurmi should > > consider Top Two Runoff as more manipulable by his criterion. Perhaps > > he does, but not enough to put it at level V. > > I guess you mean: "Perhaps he does, but not enough to put it at > level III." That's what I meant, since more manipulable corresponds to a lower number in their hierarchy. Thanks for catching that. Forest
