On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:36:27PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > 1) Implementing a quorum seems to have a lower risk of damaging
> > Condorcet voting, than the discussed supermajority strategies have.
>
> This is a very interesting point.
>
> In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum,
> but we expect that they're not important because people using those
> strategies can only cause the default option to win, and the default
> option is just a short delay until the next vote.
>
> What would you think of an implementation of supermajority which has
> this same general characteristic? [I ask this because Anthony Town's
> most recent implied draft presents an implementation of supermajority
> with exactly this property.]
How does it have this property?
As I understand Anthony Town's proposal, the supermajority
requirement can kick out single options. After that the
Condorcet method is used to find a winner (which not needs
to be the default option). In
A = change the scoial contract and remove non-free
(Requires supermajority)
B = try to nurture and increase non-free
(Requires no supermajority)
C = further discussion
it could easily happen that A get's kicked out and B wins then.
(Exmaple: 200 ABC, 102 BAC, 101 CAB)
Or did I understand this wrong?
Jochen
--
Omm
(0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/privat.html
Attachment:
pgpC51jeHoJYG.pgp
Description: PGP signature