Re: Hybrid Theory
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:54:21AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
This is interesting. But how is the default option different to the
status quo?
The default option resolves nothing.
If the default option is "further discussion": unless a decision is made
to drop the issue [and this is an independent decision from "further
discussion"], the default option means that we continue to attempt to
come up with some resolution which may change status quo.
If the default option is "none of the above" [a leader vote]: we always
continue with a new election after a defaulted election, and it plain
doesn't make sense to talk about a followup election with the same votes
to pick another leader.
FYI,
I'm a little confused about the default option, and what the intention
of a supermajority is.
Assume the default option is different to the status quo, as you have
indicated above.
Assume these options.
A: "Change constitution" (10:1 supermajority)
B: "No change" (status quo).
D: "Further discussion". (default option)
Assume that most people are sick of discussing the issue, and just want
a result. (I think it is resonable to assume this will occur in real
life situations). Hence, most people rank "further discussion" last.
Votes are like this.
52 ABD
40 BAD
8 DBA
A defeats B (52:48)
A defeats D (92:80) (Due to supermajority)
B defeats D (92:8)
Here, A wins, even though a superminority of people prefer the status quo.
In my opinion, supermajority requirements are set to make sure major
changes need very popular support, to ensure that major changes only
happen when absolutely needed.
Again in my opinion, if a superminority of voters support no change
rather than major change, then no change should take place.
In the vote above, a superminority of voters have supported no change
rather than major change (the constitution change), hence the
supermajority option should not win.
However, "Hybrid method" allows option A (the supermajority option) to win.
If people really believe that the supermajority option should win
despite a superminority of voters supporting the status quo, and if they
believe that if people are sick of discussing an issue, the
supermajority should pass with a simple majority, then say so, and I
won't continue in this argument.
People could say that the "40 BAD" voters should of voted "40 BDA". But
this means they would of had to vote insincerely. "Further discussion"
is their least prefered option, and thats where they have placed it. I
don't see why a method should require them to pretend they still want to
talk about an issue just to stop a supermajority option from passing.
I don't see why the current proposal insists supermajority requirements
can be met with a simple majority over the status quo. I think a
supermajority over the status quo should be required, and the proposals
I have made enforce that requirement. But if people want supermajority
requirements to have no effect when people are sick of "further
discussing" an issue, than the current "Hybrid" proposal is fine. In my
opinion however, that is not a supermajority.
---
Anyway, thats my two cents.
Clinton
Reply to: