On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > Here's my suggestion: > > > > We use the Condorcet voting method with Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential > > Dropping, along with modifications to accomodate quorum and > > supermajority requirements, described below. We determine possible > > winning options by constructing a Schwartz set; we then drop the weakest > > defeats from the Schwartz set until there are no more defeats in the > > Schwartz set. > > > > (I think it is good, but not essential, to credit our system's origins.) > > Um... Could you spell out your reasoning a bit more, here? > > I mean, are we trying to bore people to sleep so they won't be jarred > by new concepts, or what? Uh, no. I'm trying to lay a little foundation for our abrupt gear-shift into jargon. I think my suggestion is more readily comprehensible to someone reading A.6 as prose, as opposed to pseudocode. Note that I don't think A.6 shouldn't work as pseudocode; it should. A programmer should be able to construct a vote-counting mechanism from scratch and verify the outcome of any of our votes once the ballots are made public (once he's debugged his code, that is). However, the Constitution also needs to be readable and fairly self-contained. > > Replace second sentence: > > > > Once a defeat is dropped from the Schwartz set it is never re-added. > > I'm not comfortable with this because there is not just one schwartz > set but a sequence of them. Sorry, I forgot about that. > So it's possible that an option could appear in a later schwartz set > through an interpretation where only the most recent schwartz set is > considered when deciding which defeats are currently dropped. Yes. -- G. Branden Robinson | Good judgement comes from Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from branden@debian.org | bad judgement. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks
Attachment:
pgp3psqwE5M54.pgp
Description: PGP signature