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

Re: Nov 19 draft of voting amendment

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:06:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
> Consider 100 voters, a constitutional amendment, A, and a set of
> conscientious objectors. The objectors vote:
> 	30 D A
> This should, surely, be enough to stop "A" winning, no? Isn't that the point
> of a supermajority requirement?
> If the remaining 70 people vote:
> 	70 A D
> they'll succeed. If, however, they can introduce a cycle amongst A, D and
> something else, and have D:A 90:70 be the weakest defeat, like so:
> Introducing the new option, B, no supermajority requirement.  They convince
> a bunch of the conscientious objectors to support it.
> 	20 B D A
> 	10 D A
> 	70 A B D
> A defeats B (100:0), [...]

So, Andrew Pimlott tells me I can't add up, which is fair enough. Let's
try that one again.

	30 D A
	80 A D

lets the 30 folks opposed to A defeat it by exercising their
"superminority" powers.

	20 B D A
	10 D A B
	80 A B D

has: B defeats D (100:10), D defeats A (90:80), A defeats B (90:20). 90:80
is the weakest defeat, so is dropped, A wins.

The A conspiracy have to convince some of the opposers to support B and
some to be even more against B than they are against A, but neither seems
out of the question. I think allowing a minority to block changes to the
constitution, without any question of strategy confusing the issue is much
more important whether that might be able to be used as a strategy later.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Attachment: pgp7REQBJGyQ_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: