Hi, Anthony Towns: > (Raul doesn't eliminate defaults by the default option, 40:35 is the next ... defeats by ... > weakest defeat) > I seem to have overlooked that. Frankly, I don't think that special treatment of the default option is a good idea. We are already using supermajority rules, which gives the default option extra weight. Why would we want _another_ rule which does basically the same, but somewhat differently? Anyway, if you don't eliminate defeats by the default option, then the default option is always the winner(*) if it's in the Schwartz set. (*): unless there's a tie, probably. > Likewise: you already eliminated A because it didn't satisfy its > supermajority requirement against the default option. > There was no supermajority requirement stated in that example. IMHO: The basic CpSSD algorithm has a few rather nice properties. IMHO it is in no way certain that any of the proposed rules which change this basic algorithm do not destabilize it and allow for insincere/strategic voting, or yield a surprising result which the voters will not accept. We thus should implement a supermajority-capable algorithm which doesn't break CpSSD. As I see it, the only method which can do that, by virtue of not touching the basic CpSSD algorithm, is to eliminate a candidate option from the ballot and re-run the voting algorithm from the top if the winner doesn't have a sufficient supermajority against the default option. -- Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
Attachment:
pgpWhjc6zkCZr.pgp
Description: PGP signature