Re: Hybrid Theory
> >Interestingly enough, the problem which has lead to all these voting
> >mechanics proposals very much has to do with the conflict expressed here
> >between (2b) and (2c).
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:54:21AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> I don't see the conflict. Its easy to drop options that don't meet
> supermajority requirements, and perform plain (or my proposed default
> protected) CSSD on the ones that do.
The statements were:
(2b) An option that does not meet its supermajority requirement does
not affect the outcome of the vote.
(2c) Options with a supermajority requirement should be treated as
similarly to other options as possible.
However, for the case described in
the "Hybrid Theory" voting mechanics draft treats options with a
supermajority requirement more similarly to other options than does (2b).
> However, if the method only
> compares supermajority requirements to the default option, in my humble
> opinion, it will produce strategy problems that would allow a
> supermajority option to be elected without a supermajority via insincere
> voting, a weak dummy option, and two elections, as in
If we have a majority of voters who will agree to the proposal "Debian
should jump on three feet", there is no reasonable voting system which
can prevent this proposal from winning.
However, a vote for "further discussion" is not a vote to preserve the
status quo. Instead, it's a vote against the indicated options on the
ballot -- if it wins status quo is preserved as a stopgap until another
resolution can be achieved. Thus, given the preferences you expressed,
I think your last vote in the above example would have the votes:
A (supermajority requirement), B (default), D (get rid of "Debian
should jump on three feet):
Result: D wins, and we get rid of "Debian should jump on three feet",
as nobody wants that.