On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:51:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It's irrelevant, we don't have votes without quorum/supermajority
> requirement.
Sorry, I didn't know that :-(
> I think the above is a counterexample to your idea:
Which idea? A counterexample to per-vote (and not pre-option)
quorums? Or to the idea of being aware what properties of
Condorcet voting we sacrifice?
> it obviously has the good properties of CpSSD that we want: [...]
Sorry, but which properties? Maybe the presence of quorum and
supermajority?
Jochen
--
Omm
(0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/index.html
Attachment:
pgpECls7oldMv.pgp
Description: PGP signature