Re: supermajority options
> If we would require a quorum (in the sense of Anthony Towns draft,
> i.e. we would require some minimal total number of votes) INSTEAD
> of a supermajority, I would like this:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:36:27PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> 1) Implementing a quorum seems to have a lower risk of damaging
> Condorcet voting, than the discussed supermajority strategies have.
This is a very interesting point.
In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum,
but we expect that they're not important because people using those
strategies can only cause the default option to win, and the default
option is just a short delay until the next vote.
What would you think of an implementation of supermajority which has
this same general characteristic? [I ask this because Anthony Town's
most recent implied draft presents an implementation of supermajority
with exactly this property.]
> 2) We control the set of voters via the NM process, so we may hope that
> voters know what they are doing. And if a majority of voters is
> convinced that we should do something, it will make sense, won't it?
A majority of potential voters or a majority of active voters?
What if only a few people notice what the issues being voted on are?