Hi, Raul Miller: > [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is > required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly > simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any other argument > for it. > I don't think that's a good idea -- the concept of a supermajority exists for a reason, after all. > [2] Discard the election if the winner doesn't meet supermajority. > Perhaps, if the ballot has nondefault options with differing supermajority > ratios, immediately hold another election using only the options with > a lesser supermajority ratio. I'm leaning towards this at the moment. > If that yields any result different from ... > [5] (Nov 16 and earlier drafts) Discard options which don't satisfy > supermajority before considering transitive defeat. This gets a bit > confusing to think about in the context of transitive defeats. > then either somebody must have voted non-sincerely, or some option must have been missing from the first ballot. Anyway, I don't think [5] is confusing in any transitive-defeat context because there are actually fewer defeats possible if we discard an option. ;-) > [3] (current draft) Only consider supermajority in terms of defeating > the default option. This gets a bit confusing to think about in the > context of transitive defeats. > See my earlier email -- this method favors the default option unreasonably. > [4] (my old hobby horse) Consider supermajority in every comparison > involving an option with a supermajority requirement. This gets a bit > confusing to think about in the context of transitive defeats. > This method invites insincere voting. If the voter would like to vote ABD, but thinks that B would be strong enough to block any supermajority by A, they might vote ADB instead. Not good. > Suggestion? Comments? Incoherent ramblings? > See above. ;-) -- Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
Attachment:
pgpil3hGO5Oyt.pgp
Description: PGP signature