Hi, After thinking about the whole supermajority stuff a bit, I think we need to get back to what exactly we want. I'd say that a single vote is meant to decide between a mutually exclusive set of options. This means, to me, that each option's supermajority or quorum requirements should be considered separately, and against the default option. A ballot should enable me to express what I prefer honestly. To me, that means that if some option is not supported by the majority (including any additional restrictions) then my ballot should be judged as if the option hadn't been there in the first place. As an example, let's say we get this result: > A needs 2:1, B simple majority, D default option. > > 4 ABD > 3 BDA > 3 DAB > So A vs. D doesn't meet the supermajority and is dropped. Running the vote count without option A gets us a nice majority for doing B. On the other hand, running CpSSD on the above set would yield A, and par.3 of the newest proposal would yield D as the result. In effect, the algorithm ignores the preferences 'behind' A, in this case the four ABD votes. I don't like that. IMHO it's better to remove the options from the ballot if they don't suffice the supermajority or quorum requirements against the default option before counting. We might get somewhat non-intuitive effects that way too, or we might not, but as there is no perfect counting algorithm anyway, I propose to use the algorithm which yields the least amount of nonsense. -- Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
Attachment:
pgpj5kFiKkgyc.pgp
Description: PGP signature