Dear Raphael! You wrote: > This is not independent of cloning ... in a big way :).
What makes you think so? Assuming we add a clone y of x so that all voters have x and y neighboured in their ranking and so that the new initial proportions of papers naming either x or y is the same as the original proportion of papers naming x, it seems that each voter will return exactly the same number of papers naming either x or y as they returned papers naming x originally. This seems to indicate that the procedure is clone-proof all right, isn't it? > If so, there is an odd number of winners in that case, which might > prove problematic. This is not obvious to me. Can you prove it? Yours, Jobst ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
