Re: supermajority options
Raul Miller wrote:
Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
[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.
It would certainly be easiest to implement, but it would make it as easy
to amend the Constitution as to pass a resolution. There is some sense
in making it harder to amend the governing documents.
[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.
This is underspecified. Define "winner doesn't meet supermajority.".
Once that definition is made to my satisfaction, I like this option, or
one of these two variants:
[2a] Discard the result if the CpSSD winner doesn't meet supermajority.
Default option (Further Discussion) wins by default. New election to
be held after appropriate discussion period.
[2b] Discard the result if the CpSSD winner doesn't meet supermajority.
Hold an "instant runoff" using all the remaining options and the same
ballots. Repeat until a winner is found.
I used to favor [2b], but I think I like [2a] best right now.
[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.
[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.
[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.
Suggestion? Comments? Incoherent ramblings?
[Note: I'm not going to be around much tomorrow. Maybe you'll have
everything solved for me when I get back?]
Thanks,
Reply to: