Ive already mentioned this on EM:
Earl Scruggs, in a concert, introduced, described and explained a song that
he was going to sing. Then he said:
And it goes something like this--in fact, it goes _exactly_ like this:
Ill have you know that I was the honcho of single-winner voting system
criteria J but that was before my retirement, and Ive been away from the
subject for a while.
How about something like this:
To vote X between Y and Z, when voting Y over Z, means to vote Y over X, and
X over Z.
Ive previously defined voting one candidate over another, but its a
plausible definition that I neednt look up and re-post.
A clone-set is a set of candidates between whom no one has voted any other
candidate(s).
After an election , count, and winner-determination, deleting some, but not
all, members of a clone-set from those ballots, shouldnt change the matter
of whether or not the winner comes from that clone set.
[end of possible non-Preference ICC definition]
It seems to me that that was the non-preference ICC definition that was the
only one Ive heard agreement on. In fact the only ICC definition that Ive
heard agreement on.
Mike Ossipoff
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
