On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:46:13PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote: > In my example local quorum causes the following problem: > dropping an irrelevant option changes which > relevant option wins the election. > Global quorum does not have this problem. Uh, you've got that the wrong way round. If an option is irrelevant, then the result of the vote when the option is on the ballot, should be the same as the result of the vote when the option is not on the ballot. Assuming "failing to meet quorum" makes an option irrelevant, then the proposed counting method handles this fine: the result is exactly the same as if the option was never voted on in the first place. The amended version doesn't manage this: if the option's included, then the result is different to what the result would be if that option hadn't been included in the ballot at all in the first place. Now, you can argue that "failing to meet quorum" doesn't make an option irrelevant any more than "failing to win" makes an option irrelevant, and thus that it's not worth worrying too much about this because you run up against Arrow's Theorem then, and can't fix things in the end. Personally, I think "failing quorum" and "failing supermajority" are more important than just "failing to win". Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature