Re: supermajority options

["John H. Robinson, IV" <jhriv@ucsd.edu>]

Branden Robinson wrote:
> 
> Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change.

i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least
half of the voting populous.

Condorecet seems pretty resilient to insincere voting. for each method
of counting Supermajorities, it has been shown to where it possible, in
some cases almost trivial, for an insincere vote to change the result of
an election. that appears to defeat the whole purpose of using Condorcet
to begin with.

just out of idle curiosity, has anyone asked the electionmethods people
about Condorcet+Supermajority?

should someone?

a google search produced this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:4wJT-1c0FykC:www.democ.uci.edu/democ/papers/McGann02.pdf+condorcet+supermajority&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

this paper seems to say that supermajorities produce a tyranny of the
status quo, *at the expense of the minority*

-john