Re: Another proposal.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:06:20AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > So for example, the clause, in most drafts, that first eliminated
> > options that were defeated by the default option, was a direct
> > invitation to insincere strategic voting. It would encourage voters
> > to put the default option second, in an attempt to knock out the
> > other candidates early. Exactly what we're trying to avoid with the
> > Condorcet method.
But it's exactly what we're trying to achieve with the supermajority
requirement, isn't it? Allowing voters to vote strategically so as to
knock out candidates they don't like?
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: