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.
 Who is the voting populous?
 Why are they the voting populous?
 Is competence an issue? Why or why not?
 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
> 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:
> 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?