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

Re: current A.6 draft

On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 05:58:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:32:07PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > It offends my aesthetic senses as a programmer.  ;-)
> >
> > Rewriting it as
> > 
> > >>>           e. If a majority of n:m is required for A, and B is the default
> > >>>              option, N(B,A) is (n/m).  In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1.
> > 
> > doesn't look any more verbose to me.
> True.  It's more complicated but it's not really all that much more
> verbose.
> Focussing on aesthetics: right now the only two supermajority ratios
> possible are 2:1 and 3:1 -- the numbers 2 and 3 are easy to represent.
> Asking for something more general, without specifying what that more
> general thing is going to solve, invites all sort of complexity having
> to do with the [non-existant] possibilities.

And you can anyway change your n:m ratio with a n/m:1 ratio, so this
should be a transparent change to the voting system. You would have to
rewrite your below algorithm though, altough i think you can handle it
even without using floats, by multiplying N(A) by n and N(B) by m (where
B is the default option.

> Is there another reason for introducing that complexity?

It gives more flexibility for supermajorities, apart from the 66% and
75% that corresponds to 2:1 and 3:1.


Sven Luther

Reply to: