[EM] Hey guys, look at this...

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 2/21/23 12:18, Toby Pereira wrote:

> As for the clone thing, I'm not entirely sure what all the different 
> clone definitions are - e.g. I can't easily find a definition of clone 
> winner.

What I know of cloning definitions is:

A clone set is a group of candidates between which no voter ranks any 
other candidate. That is, every voter ranks them consecutively in some 
order.

Then the clone failure types are[1]:

Teaming: Replacing a candidate A with a clone set makes one of the 
clones win.
Vote-splitting: Replacing a candidate A with a clone set makes the 
clones lose.
Crowding: Replacing a candidate A with a clone set changes the winner 
from B to C.

Woodall defines the clone criteria like this 
(https://www.rangevoting.org/WoodallP5.html)

Clone-no-help: No vote-splitting.
Clone-no-harm: No teaming.
Clone-in: For multiwinner elections, reducing the size of a clone set 
should not increase the number of winners elected from it.

I *think* clone-winner is "no vote-splitting" and clone-loser is "no 
teaming": 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIndependence_of_clones_criterion#Woodall's_terminology

Apparently this terminology is also from Woodall, though I can't find 
any papers using them.

-km

[1] Strictly speaking, they're also defined for ties and methods with 
chance: teaming happens when the total probability of electing from the 
clone set is higher than the probability of electing the candidate who 
was cloned, etc.