How should we continue from this? Should we divide the seats
proportionally at top level to the top level branches of the tree, and
then repeat the process towards the leaves.
What are the main differences between the tree if derived from the
ballots using clone analysis vs. if given by the candidates (before
the election)?
There might be also richer connections than in a tree (e.g. based on
political views and based on geography). How about allowing the
neighbours to inherit the votes in any direction based on the derived
"cloneness" relationships?
Juho
On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Here's a suggestion for detecting clone sets based on Range Ballots:
Define the distance between two candidates as the square root of the
sum (over the ballots) of the squared
diffference of their respective ratings.
If the ballots are approval style, this becomes the square root of
the number of ballots on which just one of
the two candidates is approved.
Use these distances to do a cluster analysis of the candidates.
The tree structure of the clusters gives the tree structure of the
clone sets.
If you have a clone dependent method, like Copeland, that you would
like to "de-clone," you might find this
clone set detectiion method to be useful.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
