[EM] Another multi-seat Condorcet method (PSC-CLE)

[Scott Ritchie]

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 01:18 -0700, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 13:41 -0500, Dan Bishop wrote:
> > * Independence of Clones: FAIL.
> > 
> > Consider the example election (in which A and D won) with D replaced by 
> > D1>D2>D3:
> > 
> > 33 A>D1>D2>D3>B>C
> > 33 B>D1>D2>D3>A>C
> > 32 C>D1>D2>D3>A>B
> >   2 D1>D2>D3>A>B>C
> > 
> > The elimination order is C, B, A, D3, D2, D1.  The coalition {A, D1, D2, 
> > D3} is entitled to 1 seat, and {A, B, D1, D2, D3} is entitled to 2 
> > seats.  The winners are D1 and D2, which gives the D clone set an extra 
> > seat compared to the original election.
> 
> D is a condorcet winner here.  D1 is a condorcet winner as well, but it
> seems very interesting to note that even if we eliminate a quota's worth
> of votes from the D supporters after declaring D1 elected, D2 would be a
> condorcet winner.  This seems meaningful, as it implies that both D1 and
> D2 have distinct quotas worth of votes rating them as top preference
> before eliminating any nonwinning candidates - that sounds like they
> should win.
> 
> What if we clone someone outside of this set, ie other than D1, D2, and
> D3?  Can teaming occur then?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott Ritchie
> 

On second thought, is this really an example of teaming?  I always
thought of teaming as a form of strategic nomination where you could
affect the results by adding candidates in ways other than making the
new candidate win (such as, say, making it more likely that an other
candidate would win.)

Here we've got an election method where at first candidate A and D1 won
initially.  Then another candidate, D2, runs instead, and now D2 wins
instead of A - to me that sounds less like strategic nomination and more
like...well, nomination of a winner.

Any election method initially selecting {A, D1} should allow for the
possibility of {A, D2}, or {D1, D2} winning once D2 is nominated.  It
seems strange to call that teaming when the only reason the team won
more seats was because it didn't nominate enough candidates in the first
place.

Thanks,
Scott Ritchie