# [Election-Methods] Using range ballots as an extension of ranked ballot voting

Juho juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Mar 16 15:18:47 PDT 2008

```On Mar 15, 2008, at 19:55 , Michael Rouse wrote:

>> I have one concern - the behaviour of the counting method with
>> clones. Let's multiply one of the candidates (A => A1 and A2). Then
>> we would have: 1: A1=10 A2=10 B=2 C=1 D=0 1: A1=10 A2=10 C=7 B=6 D=0
>> 1: B=10 C=6 A1=5 A2=5 D=0 3: C=10 D=5 A1=1 A2=1 B=0 3: D=10 B=4 A1=3
>> A2=3 C=0
>>
>> Before the modification the results of C were:
>>> To make C the weak Condorcet winner (C>=A,B,D), removing the
>>> relation A>C and B>C is sufficient. The total distance is 4 (3+1)
>>
>>
>> Is it so that with the new votes the results of C would be: To make C
>> the weak Condorcet winner (C>=A1,A2,B,D), removing the relation A1>C,
>> A2>C and B>C is sufficient. The total distance is 7 (3 +3+1)
>>
>> This would mean that by naming numerous candidates one party (A1,A2)
>> could make the position of some other party (C) worse.
>
> On the other hand, it wouldn't make either A1 or A2 the winner

But isn't the method vulnerable to cloning when there is a loop of
three (A>B>C>A), C wins, B is second, but then B is cloned to B1 and B2?

Juho

___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

```