Steve, The term "clones" refers to candidates who are together on every ballot in an election. In other words, on no ballot does any other candidate separate them. (Markus has a good formal definition.) The term doesn't imply that the candidates are actually alike in any way, much less that they're clones in the genetic sense. :-) Being independent of clones is different and much easier than being independent of irrelevant alternatives. In fact, no Condorcet method is independent of irrelevant alternatives, although many are independent of clones, which I see as an important advantage over Borda.
> Maybe, just maybe, part of the problem is that we are sort of > prejudiced in favor of majoritarian systems, and too > uncritically accepting of the majority rules ideal. Just as a quick point, every reasonable ranked-ballot method I know of is equivalent to plurality when there are only two candidates. So all of them, from Borda to Condorcet, can be thought of as generalizations of plurality in that sense. As for your sample elections . . . > 1,000,001:Eric>Fran>Gary > 1,000,000:Fran>Gary>Eric Eric, the freedom-loving candidate, wins a squeaker using Condorcet, and no voter would have reason to regret his vote. If Borda were used, though, Fran would win by a large margin, and the freedom-loving voters would have *plenty* of reason to regret voting Fran second. If they'd all voted Fran last, their favorite would have won. Doesn't it bother you that Borda encourages insincere voting to such an extreme? > 1,000,000:Eric>Fran>Gary > 1,000,000:Fran>Gary>Eric This one should be a tie between Eric and Fran. Do you really think Fran should win decisively just because the socialists ran two candidates? Would you honestly like to see parties or ideologies benefit by running lots of candidates? As much as I hate the vote-splitting that occurs using plurality or IRV, at least it limits the confusion and complexity. Surely the proliferation of candidates that would occur using Borda would be much more nightmarish. But that's just my opinion. If it doesn't convince you, then stick with Borda. Believing that Borda is the best method is perfectly logical if certain criteria are considered more important than others, but aren't Saari's criteria far removed from real-world concerns? ===== Rob LeGrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.aggies.org/honky98/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com
