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

Re: Hybrid Theory

On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Can you give reasons for (1a) and (1b)?  As far as I understood the
> debate, the reason for a quorum is to avoid "stealth-decision-making",
> i.e. to assert that enough developers notice the election and take part
> in it.  Because of this for me the concept of a per-option quorum does
> not make much sense.  What do you think?

Ballot contains A and D, A has 1:1 majority, D is default option.
Quorum is 45.

23 people vote for A.

A defeats D, but A doesn't meet quorum, default option wins.

23 people vote for A.
22 people vote for D.

A defeats D, A meets quorum, A wins.

Or: the addition of 22 people voting against A caused A to win.  In my
opinion, this is very wrong.

Note also that the process of ballot creation needs protection from
lack of interest.  We can't assume, just because someone submits a
ballot, that they participated during the creation of that ballot.
I use comparison with the default option to determine whether or not
the voter approves of that option being on the ballot.

Aside: I'm in favor of an analysis of the voting system based on the
electionmethods principles you referred to.  I expect [hope] that
without quorum and supermajority requirements the system I proposed
earlier today meets all the criteria of condorcet.  With quorum and
supermajority I expect there to be edge cases where we lose criteria
which aren't criteria of approval.  I hope someone can prove that my
expectations are right [or wrong, if they are indeed wrong].



Reply to: