Re: RFD: informal proposal
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
> supermajority and default swapped, after adopting an option with
> supermajority, until the result stops changing?
Do you mean:
A = supermajority 2:1 over D
B = foo
C = bar
D = further discussion
B wins
A = supermajority 2:1 over B
B = foo
C = bar
D = further discussion
recount, C wins,
A = supermajority 2:1 over C
B = foo
C = bar
D = further discussion
recound, A wins,
A = no supermajority
B = foo
C = bar
D = further discussion
A wins, we're stable, so A _really_ wins.
For this to break, you'd need A to win when B is the default option and
B to win when A is the default option (or a similar loop). Two way loops
aren't possible. Three way?
A beats B, 50:20
B beats C, 40:30
C beats A, 40:30
C is the default option. A is eliminated. B wins.
Thus, B is the default option. C is eliminated, A wins, by a supermajority.
Thus, A is the default option. B is eliminated. C wins.
Repeat indefinitely.
Again, it seems hellishly complicated, I think it's much better to just
use the system of a couple of days ago, and expect people to propose an
option "leave things the way they are, end of discussion" separate to
the default option, so they can clearly distinguish between "if B wins,
I'd then vote for A, but I won't vote for A now" and "I won't vote for
A ever, whether B wins or not".
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.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Reply to: