# [EM] Newbie de-lurks to propose a clone-proof Borda method

Ken Kuhlman kskuhlman at gmail.com
Tue May 24 15:13:17 PDT 2005

```Eric Gorr wrote:
>Ken Kuhlman wrote:
>>*  The method proposed below, which I call "Correlated Instant
*>>*   Borda Runoff," is basically a tweak of Baldwin to solve the
clone problem.
*
>There seems to be a problem with a case where a high-correlation would
>exist, but there are not actual clones...i.e. your method may unfairly
>eliminate a candidate from the race.

>Why should this not be considered a significant flaw?

Good question.  I'll give you two answers.

First, since the eliminated candidate is a Borda loser, they're not going to
win the election anyway, so their elimination can't be unfair.

Second, clones are seen as a special case of correlated pairs.  All
correlations
devalue the point score of being picked in a certain rank order.  An
overly strict
definition of what it means to be a clone would result in strange
election results.

Consider the election:
50:A>B>C
49:B>C>A
1:C>A>B

Under plain Borda, or a clone-proof version with a strict definition
of "clone",
B would win, but 99% of the voters see B & C as (near)
indistinguishable.  A single
elector that votes otherwise shouldn't undermine the significance of
this.  "Clone-ness"
thus can't be a binary factor that is either "on" or "off," but a
continuous function.

A method that recognizes this should reduce the importance of the BC
pair defeating A
in the 49 B>C>A ballots and give the election to A.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20050524/d05a78a4/attachment-0003.htm>
```