On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 02:53:15AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > A.6(3) A supermajority requirement of n:m for an option A means that > when votes are considered which indicate option A as a better > choice than some other option B, the number of votes in favor > of A are multiplied by m/n. This gives different results to the current system when two options on a single ballot would require different supermajorities to pass. Please reread: Message-ID: <[🔎] 20001124100724.A18834@azure.humbug.org.au> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:07:24 +1000 and: Message-ID: <[🔎] 20001124144439.A20871@azure.humbug.org.au> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:44:40 +1000 for the explanation. A much fairer supermajority requirement would simply be: A.6(3) A supermajority of N:M for an option A is met when the number of votes ranking A higher than the default option, divided by N is greater than than the number of votes ranking the default option higher than A. However it's not clear what should happen when the clear winner of a set of options doesn't meet its supermajority requirement, yet a loser (with a different supermajority requirement) does. It's similarly unclear what should happen if the winner doesn't meet its supermajority requirments, but some other member of the Smith set does. I would suggest something to the effect of: * Reduce to the Smith Set * Eliminate options that don't meet the supermajority requirement * If none left -> default option wins * If one left -> it wins * If many left, use some tie-breaker, eg STV, Tideman, Schulze Somewhat more detailed discussion of that sort of method is back in: Message-ID: <[🔎] 20001121194243.A31777@azure.humbug.org.au> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:42:44 +1000 Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Thanks to all avid pokers out there'' -- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
Attachment:
pgpZIPY8JSTRg.pgp
Description: PGP signature