[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5)



On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 03:17:05AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:07:26AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > "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.
> I disagree.
> Status-quo in the context of supermajority means don't do anything that
> requires supermajority.  That can still leave a lot of options.

Well, you're welcome to disagree, but be aware that your definition
doesn't match the way the current system (the N+1 votes) works, and
doesn't match the way most systems work (which only provide "No, don't
resolve this" as a `status-quo' option).

Biassing the results towards options that don't require a supermajority
doesn't seem a particularly useful thing to do to me [0].

Cheers,
aj

[0] I say "biassing" since if you take a vote where you have two options:
	* Modify social contract (M) (requires 3:1 supermajority)
	* Do nothing (N)
    and M has unanimous support over N, and then add a third option:
	* Evade constitution (E)
    (which would resolve that, say, "No new .debs will be added to
    non-free, and wherever possible .debs already there will be removed"),
    which is preferred over N by everyone, but preferred over M by just
    over a quarter of the voters, it'd win.

    This isn't what would happen in the current system (E would be
    dismissed when deciding on the form of the resolution), and isn't,
    IMO, a reasonable outcome at all.

-- 
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: pgpjwW5eFCBiB.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: