Re: RFD: informal proposal
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:32:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:26:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:24:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:31:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > > I don't understand all this thing about changing defaults and so.
> > > Is it not enough to say that in a 2:1 supermajority case for option A,
> > > each vote for option A is halved, and then we run the election normally
> > > ?
> > No, it's not.
> Why ?
Because it's prejudiced towards non-supermajority options, which isn't
the point of a supermajority, and results in non-sensical outcomes that
can be avoided (in particular adding an option that's not particularly
popular can defeat an option that is preferred and would have passed quite
successfully otherwise)
This issue has been discussed to death by me, if someone else wants to
explain it more fully, please do.
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: