[Election-Methods] method design challenge + new method AMP

[Juho]

On May 9, 2008, at 0:56 , Jobst Heitzig wrote:

> For A1,A2 to be considered clones, the ratings would have to be
> something like
> 51: A1 100 > A2 99 > C 55 > B 0
> 49: B 100 > C 55 > A1 1 > A2 0


Could be also e.g.
A > C 99 > B 0
and after inserting the clones
A1 100 > A2 99 > C 98 > B 0

There are thus many cases where separating clones from non-clones is  
not easy. In this example also the number of rating levels impacts  
the outcome.

> You also seem to think so, since you wrote:
>> One approach to try to avoid this problem would be to use a more
>> limited clone concept: candidates that are ranked/rated equal with
>> each others.
>
> But that would never really occur in practice. I think one should  
> define
> the notion "clone" like this: A1,A2 are clones if and only if on each
> ballot, the difference in ratings between any pair of options is
> smallest for the pair A1,A2.

Yes, this is one possible definition (that can be used to formulate  
the clone criterion).

Juho





	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html