# Talk:Copeland's method

This is the discussion page (the "Talk:" page) for the page named "Copeland's method". Please use this page to discuss the topic described in the corresponding page in the main namespace (i.e. the "Copeland's method" page here on electowiki), or visit Help:Talk to learn more about talk pages.

## Resisting cloning

I think it might be possible to make Copeland resist cloning by repeatedly eliminating the candidate with the lowest Copeland score until the remaining candidates all have the same Copeland score. I proved in the "Criteria" section that Copeland passes ISDA, so doing this at the very least doesn't eliminate Copeland's Smith-efficiency. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Can't you clone on the loser end? You arrange the ballots so that there's a sensitivity to initial conditions depending on whether A or B gets eliminated, and then you make A and B a tie so that there's 50% chance of X winning, and 50% chance of Y winning in the end, whereas before the cloning, someone wins with certainty.
The reason you can't do that in IRV is because IRV is essentially blind to later preferences until someone is eliminated. But finding out whether something like that is impossible in loser-elimination Copeland would require more thought. Other loser-elimination methods like Coombs definitely aren't cloneproof (see e.g. Warren's Yee diagrams). Kristomun (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

## Issue with simplifying proofs

User:Kristomun, I just want to point out that the version of Copeland discussed in this article is "wins - defeats", not just wins. That is the main reason why I had to make the proofs so long as they were. I do not mind if you only want to provide proofs for the simpler "wins" version, but it'd probably be best to mention that in the article. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point, so I've added some text to show that the argument also holds for wins-losses. Kristomun (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

## Merge Copeland Winner article

@Masiarek: we should explain all of the Copeland-related concepts on the "Copeland's method" page before creating a "Copeland winner" page. I'm hoping you looked for a page to edit prior to creating a new page, and that you just didn't find the "Copeland's method" page, but please let me know if you had other reasons for creating the new "Copeland winner" page. -- RobLa (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

## Need to find a reference for Copeland set

I've been wanting to find references for "Copeland set" for quite some time. In the Sass Open Democracy Discussion, we discussed some of the others:

Someday.... -- RobLa (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The "Computational Complexity of Choice Sets" paper of the first reference of the Copeland method page lists and mentions the Copeland set. Google Scholar gives a few other references as well. Kristomun (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)