Re: Hybrid Theory
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Can you give reasons for (1a) and (1b)? As far as I understood the
> debate, the reason for a quorum is to avoid "stealth-decision-making",
> i.e. to assert that enough developers notice the election and take part
> in it. Because of this for me the concept of a per-option quorum does
> not make much sense. What do you think?
Ballot contains A and D, A has 1:1 majority, D is default option.
Quorum is 45.
23 people vote for A.
A defeats D, but A doesn't meet quorum, default option wins.
23 people vote for A.
22 people vote for D.
A defeats D, A meets quorum, A wins.
Or: the addition of 22 people voting against A caused A to win. In my
opinion, this is very wrong.
Note also that the process of ballot creation needs protection from
lack of interest. We can't assume, just because someone submits a
ballot, that they participated during the creation of that ballot.
I use comparison with the default option to determine whether or not
the voter approves of that option being on the ballot.
Aside: I'm in favor of an analysis of the voting system based on the
electionmethods principles you referred to. I expect [hope] that
without quorum and supermajority requirements the system I proposed
earlier today meets all the criteria of condorcet. With quorum and
supermajority I expect there to be edge cases where we lose criteria
which aren't criteria of approval. I hope someone can prove that my
expectations are right [or wrong, if they are indeed wrong].
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: