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

Re: supermajority options

Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least
> half of the voting populous.

[1] Who is the voting populous?

[2] Why are they the voting populous?

[3] Is competence an issue?  Why or why not?

[4] Is involvement an issue?  Why or why not?

[Hint: for most things in Debian, you need to convince at least one
person who happens to be the package maintainer.]

> Condorecet seems pretty resilient to insincere voting. for each method
> of counting Supermajorities, it has been shown to where it possible, in
> some cases almost trivial, for an insincere vote to change the result of
> an election. that appears to defeat the whole purpose of using Condorcet
> to begin with.

For some methods, this is true.

You seem to be assuming this is true for all methods, but you offer
no proof.

> just out of idle curiosity, has anyone asked the electionmethods people
> about Condorcet+Supermajority?


Unfortunately, most of them seemed to lose interest in the discussion
before we had much discussed the underlying issues.

> should someone?
> a google search produced this:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:4wJT-1c0FykC:www.democ.uci.edu/democ/papers/McGann02.pdf+condorcet+supermajority&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> this paper seems to say that supermajorities produce a tyranny of the
> status quo, *at the expense of the minority*

Before our constitution, Debian required near unanimous agreement
on all issues.  The constitution was introduced as a somewhat
formalized relaxation of that principle.

  Tyranny \Tyr"an*ny\ (?), n. [OE. tirannye, OF. tirannie, F.
     tyrannie; cf. It. tirannia; Gr. &?;, &?;, L. tyrannis. See
     1. The government or authority of a tyrant; a country
        governed by an absolute ruler; hence, arbitrary or
        despotic exercise of power; exercise of power over
        subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or
        justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government.
        "Sir," would he [Seneca] say, "an emperor mote need Be
        virtuous and hate tyranny."                 --Chaucer.

     2. Cruel government or discipline; as, the tyranny of a

     3. Severity; rigor; inclemency. The tyranny of the open
        night's too rough For nature to endure.     --Shak.

None of the definitions of "tyranny" don't really make sense in our

That said: Debian 3:1 supermajority is LESS OF A CONSTRAINT than a
requirement that a majority of the voting population agree.

Are you suggesting that we prefer majority rule because it's more of a
constraint ["more tyranical"] than supermajority?  Or are you defining
"tyranical" as anything other than "majority rule" and are you advocating
"majority rule" over "debian 3:1 supermajority" because "majority rule"
is more like "majority rule" than our supermajority is?

Or are you saying something else that I've completely misunderstood?


Reply to: