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

Re: supermajority options

On Nov 24, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:59:07AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > If Vote #1 loses, the game might be repeated ad nauseum until it
> > passes.  But at least the risk of lurching back and forth is reduced
> > substantially, and this requires proponents to maintain a long-term
> > interest in passage.  It also encourages proponents to compromise with
> > opponents (thus encouraging consensus), as gathering a 2:1 margin is
> > relatively hard.
> I think we could have this benefit even without a supermajority
> requirement, because our voting system is more sophisticated than
> the yes/no model you're using.  Suppose an option wins with only 51:49
> support.  Just like in your scenario, the losers are pissed and
> organize a new vote.  However, both camps are now aware of how close
> the margin is, so it's likely that several compromise options will
> be added to the ballot, and those are likely to win with a larger
> margin.

Except, we're stuck with the non-compromise in the meantime.  If Vote
#1 is "rm -rf ftp.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free", it's going to be
a bit of a pain to fix that :-)

Chris Lawrence <cnlawren@phy.olemiss.edu> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/

Computer Systems Manager, Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Mississippi
125B Lewis Hall - 662-915-5765

Reply to: