Re: current A.6 draft [examples]
> > It's not fair to base an argument on an axiom which is known to be false.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:45:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It doesn't matter whether the axiom is false as written: it's trivial
> to salvage its intended meaning (by either dropping quorum requirements,
> or qualifying the axiom to apply only when the quorum requirements have
> already been met for all the options listed).
I can accept, with that clause added, the axiom that the option ranked
first must win the election.
I am uncomfortable this for the axiom that the option ranked last must
lose. It's just too arbitrary. For example, consider also a ballot with
only one option (not that our current system allows this). The resulting
statement is rather akward to accept as being true without proof.
> The question
> is why you would want to go ahead and default the election anyway,
> when there is an option that can be accepted (it meets quorum, doesn't
> require a supermajority, and obviously a majority prefer it to defaulting
> the election)?
I think I've got a proposal which addresses this problem. [next message]
> It's _much_ better to work out the principles first, then the mechanisms.
Ok, but bear with me a bit when I ask questions to help me sort out
implicit questions.
> We already have a context: "what does it mean in terms of the given
> election"? I don't see how you can say anything other than: "it means
> that we go with the majority decision that B is better than defaulting".
...
> ... any sufficiently
> sized "super" minority should be able to block any given options with
> supermajority requirements.
This helps.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: