What is the Demorep1 'clone' idea?

[Craig Carey]

At 17:42 13.03.00, DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
 >research at ijs.co.nz asked-
 >
 >I ask Demorep1 to define as briefly and a mathematically as he can,
 >  his idea of "clones". I guess it differs from Blake Cretney's,
...
 >D- A clone is an added choice that is ... beaten by another like choice 
 >(such as 2 or more like liberals or conservatives).
...
 >In reality land, adding a clone may cause some voters to put the clone before 
 >the original.
 >
 >32 ABNC
 >3  ANBC
 >30 BNCA
 >4  NBCA
 >29 CABN
 >2  CANB
 >100
 >
 >91 BN 9 (margin 82)
 >Note that N still beats C.
...

Possibly Demorep1 gave consideration to writing:
  "if B loses then N loses also".

Rule P1 allows that to be deduced. Recap.: P1 is that rule that says that,
  for a candidate, if preferences at and after a preference for that
  candidate are altered in any way, then the candidate cannot change
  from a loser into a winner. (In papers where the candidate's preference
  is the first, then votes, rather than preferences, may be discarded.)

Depending on how monotonicity is defined, the following argument could be
  made with monotonicity instead of P1 (monotonicity is presumably weaker).


Assume N wins system (10).
(10):
  32  ABN
   3  ANB
  30  BNC
   4  NBC
  29  CAB
   2  CAN

By P1, if B loses (10), then B also loses (11). [B weakens its vote.]
  Equivalently (since (a=>b)=((-a)=>(-b))).
  If B wins (11), then B wins (10).
(11):
   3  ABN  | 31
  29  ANB  |
   3  ANB
   4  BNC  | 30
  26  NBC  |
   4  NBC
   2  CAB  | 29
  27  CAN  |
   2  CAN

Papers (11) are identical to (12). If B wins (12) then B wins (10).
(12):
   3  ABN
  32  ANB
   4  BNC
  30  NBC
   2  CAB
  29  CAN

Swap B with N in (12) and that converts (12) into (10). The statement
  then becomes: If N wins (10) then B wins (10).

Hence it is seen that it can never occur that N loses (10) and
  B wins (10). That holds for the number of winners being between
  0 and 4.

I ask Demorep1: what is your idea of clones? if it is nothing but a
  corollary of monotonicity?. I presume it is just that. Some methods
  are not monotonic.