On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 12:01:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 02:34:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > With your rule, you instead just have an initial vote, with the initial > > pairwise preferences: > > A dominates B, 60 to 40 > > A dominates F, 100 to 10 > > B dominates F, 100 to 10 > What part of my proposed A.6 leads you to believe this? [It's other > parts of the constitution which specify how the ballots are constructed.] If you still require N initial votes and 1 final vote, it has no benefit over the current wording, at all, since supermajorities only apply to final votes, which are forced to have simply Yes/No/Further Discussion as their options. If you'd rather that I'd phrased it as "you instead just have a final vote, with the pairwise preferences", you're welcome to take it as that. Again, the three things that need to be changed in the constitution, IMO, are: a) resolving circular ties needs to be decided on and spelled out b) votes with multiple options need to be able to be handled by a single vote c) supermajority requirements need to be updated to cope with (b) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Thanks to all avid pokers out there'' -- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
Attachment:
pgpYWZzErubIh.pgp
Description: PGP signature