peter barath wrote (18/04/2007): >I call a subset of candidates a quasi-clone set, if: > >1. they don't make up the whole set of candidates >2. for every candidate out of the set they are in >the same winning relation with (all beat / all tie / >all lose) > >(You can ask why to make the subsets at all, but I think >this Rubicon is already crossed with the Smith-set, >which is a special kind of quasi-clone sets.) > >
This is similar to Forest Simmons' "beat clone sets" he uses in his Dec. 2004 "sprucing up" process idea. http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014325.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014326.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014328.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014330.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014331.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014354.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014337.html Chris Benham Markus Schulze wrote: >Dear Peter Barath, > >your proposal is very similar to Mike Ossipoff's subcycle rule. >Please read: > >http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1996-June/000494.html >http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1996-June/000532.html >http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1996-July/000572.html >http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1997-September/001532.html >http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1998-June/001721.html >http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-February/014707.html > >Markus Schulze > > ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
