[EM] Tiebreaker graphs for Condorcet

Michael Ossipoff mikeo2106 at msn.com
Sat Jan 27 03:05:09 PST 2007

Abd wrote:

What is the problem with the definition of clone? There seem to be
two definitions, if I look at Wikipedia. One is that the two
candidates are identical. This would require equal rating in Range,
for example, and Range would clearly pass ICC. The other is that the
candidates are only ranked identically,

I comment:

The definition that I heard was that the clones are consecutively-rankeed 
(not necessarily in the same order) by everyone. In other words, it's a set 
of candidates between whom no one ranks anyone else.

It's been a long time since I discussed this, but definilng ICC is a problem 
if it's based on preferences. Then we have to decide how people's voting is 
constrained. Do they try to maximize ltheir utility expectation, for 

I've heard peference-based definitions that were vague because they 
specified no such constraints. Preference-based definitions of IIAC have 
that problem too. But I don't object to preference-based criteria, if 
they're well defined. For instance, my defensive strategy criteria are 

But the only satisfactory ICC definition that I know of isn't preference 
based. It's votes-only. It's the only one that I've heard agreement on.

Because of the modem-shutoff problem, I'd better quit here.

Mike Ossipoff

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list