Hi, Raul Miller: > Anthony Towns: > > In particular, dropping the options that don't meet their supermajority > > requirement before applying CpSSD meets the above criteria better than > > strengthening the default versus supermajority-option defeat: it avoids > > scaling transitive comparisons and ensures that options that don't meet > > the supermajority requirement don't prejudice other options. > > I've rejected this idea because it introduces > problems which Buddha illustrated in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00162.html > It's a known fact that dropping (or adding) an option from a Condorcet election may change its result if there's a cycle. You want an election method where this cannot happen? Don't use Condorcet voting. It's that simple. :-/ I don't like to play around with ratios when considering the supermajority requirement. It already has led to one unforeseen effect (the rule about not dropping the default, because otherwise the supermajority-requiring option might _still_ win -- which gives the default option a strength it IMHO does NOT deserve); nobody can guarantee that there are no others. -- Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
Attachment:
pgpELXrPdqsR3.pgp
Description: PGP signature