On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:46:00AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I agree with the Smith Criterion. I'm not sure I understand
> enough about what's meant by "pairwise contests" to agree with
> the Condorcet criterion.
The Smith criterion implies the Condorcet criterion, btw.
Pairwise contests just means take all the votes you've got, and ignore
all options but the two you're considering. If one's ranked higher than
the other, consider it a vote for the one, if its the other way around
a vote for the other, if neither are ranked, ignore it.
You then get a table that tells you:
N people preferred A to B, while M preferred B to A (and O didn't
seem to care at all)
for each option A to B.
The Condorcet criteria says that if there's a single option, which wins
every pairwise contest (so 100 people prefer it over X, while only 50
prefered X to it, and 78 prefered it over Y, but only 70 prefered Y to
it, and so on for *every* option), then it should win.
> > 2) If the winner has a supermajority requirement, compare the winner
> > with the "status quo" option. If it defeats the status quo by the
> > supermajority requirement, then it wins, otherwise "default" wins.
> I dislike this, immensely.
> What if you have more than one flavor of "status quo" you're voting
> for?
"Status-quo" means don't resolve *anything*. There are at most two ways of
doing that: by doing nothing, and not even discussing the matter again,
and by doing nothing constructive, but continuing to flame each other. I
personally don't think that's a distinction that'll be successfully
determined by a vote, though.
IMHO, anyway.
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:
pgphIdJaHM8g7.pgp
Description: PGP signature