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

Re: supermajority options


Buddha Buck:
> non-Amendment GR passes if it is the CpSSD winner, but an Amendment is 
> required to be the Condorcet winner (vote to be held again, after a 
> discussion period, if an Amendment is the CpSSD winner but not the 
> Condorcet winner), is that a supermajority procedure?  It is definitely 
> a non-neutral procedure).
It's not even a majority requirement, if we define "majority" by the
conventional "more than half of the voters rank this choice first".

For a trivial example, consider a vote split three-ways between
- cabd
- badc
- dacb

Run it through Condorcet: A is unbeaten, thus the winner.

The "Condorcet winner" idea is interesting, but I don't know ...

> On the otherhand, it might also short circuit debate and compromise, 
> since there is less impetus to convince people of your version over 
> another before the ballot is drawn up.

IMHO, the non-requirement to convince "enough" people to rank "my" pet
choice first can equally well result in a less hot-headed debate. All you
need to do, under Condorcet, is to convince enough people that your
favorite choice is "acceptable enough", after all.

> Actually, it is stronger evidence against McGann's thesis, that majority 
> rule provides the best protection for the minority.

Personally, I don't think that thesis is true _at_all_.

Matthias Urlichs     |     noris network AG     |     http://smurf.noris.de/

Attachment: pgp7WpixQqtHr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: