[EM] COWPEA and COWPEA Lottery paper on arXiv
tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk
Sun May 21 14:25:56 PDT 2023
On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 21:05:28 BST, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
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?"
Something along those lines. Although I might still frame it in terms of increasing/decreasing probabilities. For a deterministic method it just means 1 or 0 anyway.
>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.
Yes. Also I think having multiple representatives per constituency would reduce the variance as well. Certainly very popular candidates would be less on a knife-edge if they have five or six opportunities to get elected.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods