<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpa99fa095yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42);">On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 19:34:33 BST, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div id="ydp1209c707yahoo_quoted_4916603880" class="ydp1209c707yahoo_quoted"><div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">>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 > 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.<div class="ydp1209c707yqt7618281441" id="ydp1209c707yqtfd83445"><br></div><div class="ydp1209c707yqt7618281441" id="ydp1209c707yqtfd83445" dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">You're right. I'll make a note of that for any updates to the paper.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div>>That's interesting. It reminds me of a ranked method I mentioned on here <br clear="none">>once, where you choose a winner from the top of a ranked ballot, <br clear="none">>eliminate this winner, and repeat. It tends to party list <br clear="none">>proportionality given enough candidates per party, but is either not <br clear="none">>very proportional (when determinized) or has a high variance (when not) <br clear="none">>with few seats. Unlike COWPEA, it also works by electing candidates <br clear="none">>rather than excluding them.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">>Could anything useful be said about the mode of the COWPEA lottery for a <br clear="none">>fixed number of candidates? Or does that lose proportionality the way <br clear="none">>random ballot is (in a sense) proportional yet Plurality definitely is not?<br clear="none"><br clear="none">>-km</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I noticed you'd added the ranked-ballot version of random ballot on the wiki at some point last year. <a href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Random_ballot" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://electowiki.org/wiki/Random_ballot</a> I think I prefer COWPEA Lottery because although it's still a lottery, it potentially uses more ballots - i.e. not just the same number of ballots as there are candidates to elect - so I see it as a more consensual lottery (unless everyone just bullet votes.) Because of that I think its proportionality might hold up better than the ranked method. Obviously its proportional guarantees aren't as great as the deterministic variable-candidate-weight version though. But if there are several representatives (e.g. 5 or 6) elected per geographical constituency and many of these across a country, then overall it should give better proportionality than a deterministic method. This is because parties/ideologies that have say 10% of the support nationally should still win the right proportion of seats rather than keep missing out. I also think it works well with scores or grades but used as layers of approval rather than as numerical values, and I think this probably reduces the strategic burden on the voters.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Toby</div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>