On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:38:12AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> Second, I don't think that the disadvantages of this approach have
> been adequately addressed. You have focused almost entirely on one
> aspect ("what supermajority is about") as if it were the only one to
> consider.
Condorcet voting is good, and has a bunch of good properties. One that it's
missing is any ability to cope with supermajorities -- that is, to allow a
minority of a particular size to block a change. We happen to require that
property.
It's not particularly interesting to say "but allowing minorities to
block issues makes the following things unfair: ..." -- certainly,
it does, but allowing minorities to block issues is exactly the point,
no matter _what_ things it makes unfair.
If there are other ways of allowing a minority to block an issue
(eg, making defeats-by-default really strong rather versus dropping
options-defeated-by-default), then that's great and interesting. Options
that _don't_ let a minority successfully block an option without having
to truncate or otherwise vote inaccurately or insincerely aren't really
acceptable, even if they are marginally better in other ways.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Attachment:
pgpR7vpvzGLkm.pgp
Description: PGP signature