[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 Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:53:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:48:48PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > 	* What to require for an option to meet quorum
> > > 	  (working assumption: count the number of votes that mention
> > > 	   the option, and compare against quorum)
> This is just flat out wrong, the working assumption we had was count
> the number of votes that rate the option above the default, and compare
> against quorum.

(For reference, yes, I did realise I was abusing myself there)

> > Supermajority is a mechanism for saying, in my opinion:
> > don't change this if you've got another reasonable option.
> Well, no, it's not.
> What would possibly convince you otherwise? General usage of the
> term? You seemed disinclined to care when I asked for other examples of
> this interpretation. That the alternative is more expressive? That the
> alternative is less biassed? A straw poll on this list? Anything at all?

I really would like an answer to that. What would it take to convince
you otherwise?  What arguments would be worth presenting?

Some things you could probably do to convince me otherwise would be:

	* list a number of other places where your interpretation
	  has been used over mine

	* show how your system was less biassed than mine, or how the
	  additional biasses are actually clearly beneficial

	* have a vote, and have a majority of developers prefer your
	  interpretation over mine


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: pgp6FhPnaNIJy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: