[EM] COWPEA and COWPEA Lottery paper on arXiv

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at t-online.de
Sun May 21 13:04:34 PDT 2023

On 5/21/23 20:57, Toby Pereira wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 19:34:33 BST, Kristofer Munsterhjelm 
> <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
>  >In the paper, when describing clone independence, you say:
>  >> In a single-winner method, the situation is much simpler: adding a  
>  > clone would mean that the winner must not switch between a candidate
>  >> outside the clone set and one inside, in either direction.
>  >Doesn't that definition omit crowding? The winner would change from a
>  >candidate outside the clone set to another one.
> You're right. I'll make a note of that for any updates to the paper.

What would the multiwinner version be - just a straightforward "cloning 
a non-winner shouldn't replace one of the winners with someone else?"

Good point about the additional information being incorporated. Strictly 
speaking, random ballot also has the proportionality due to 
nondeterminism property, but its variance is too high. I suppose more 
information being incorporated into the COWPEA lottery would reduce the 
variance as well.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list