<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp5254c7eeyahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydp1e6018b1yahoo_quoted_4784454461" class="ydp1e6018b1yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 21:05:28 BST, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">On 5/21/23 20:57, Toby Pereira wrote:<br clear="none">> On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 19:34:33 BST, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <br clear="none">> <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:km_elmet@t-online.de" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">km_elmet@t-online.de</a>> wrote:<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> >In the paper, when describing clone independence, you say:<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> >> In a single-winner method, the situation is much simpler: adding a <br clear="none">> > clone would mean that the winner must not switch between a candidate<br clear="none">> >> outside the clone set and one inside, in either direction.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> >Doesn't that definition omit crowding? The winner would change from a<br clear="none">> >candidate outside the clone set to another one.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> You're right. I'll make a note of that for any updates to the paper.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">>What would the multiwinner version be - just a straightforward "cloning <br clear="none">>a non-winner shouldn't replace one of the winners with someone else?"</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">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.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">>Good point about the additional information being incorporated. Strictly <br clear="none">>speaking, random ballot also has the proportionality due to <br clear="none">>nondeterminism property, but its variance is too high. I suppose more <br clear="none">>information being incorporated into the COWPEA lottery would reduce the <br clear="none">>variance as well.<div class="ydp1e6018b1yqt8555274487" id="ydp1e6018b1yqtfd28638"><br></div><div class="ydp1e6018b1yqt8555274487" id="ydp1e6018b1yqtfd28638" dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">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.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Toby<br clear="none"></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>