[EM] Re: ICC and Approval

[Paul Kislanko]

I am not entirely sure who said what because of the way Mike constructs his
emails, and I don't really care anymore about what you "experts" think one
way or another, but Mike (or somebody) wrote:
> Set S is a clone set if, for every particular voter, and for 
> any candidate X 
> outside S,  if that voter prefers somone in S to X than s/he prefers 
> everyone in S to X; and if that voter prefers X to someone in 
> S, then s/he 
> prefers X to everyone in S; and if that voter is indifferent 
> between X and 
> some candidate in S, then s/he is indifferent between X and 
> every candidate 
> in S.
> 
> A voter is indifferent between X and Y if s/he doesn't prefer 
> X to Y and 
> doesn't prefer Y to X.
> 
> [end of clone-set definition]

Now, this definition pretty much says there can't be a "clone set", because
any ONE (every particular) voter can break the definition by chosing a
candidate to be included in it or excluded from it. That makes no sense.

If you define "voter clones" for each voter ("every particular voter") then
you just have a different clone set for each voter. I don't know what that
means, but it certainly doesn't make the concept of "clone" in the context
of a method any easier to understand.