Re: Hybrid Theory
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 01:27:17AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> I'm a little confused about the default option, and what the intention
> of a supermajority is.
In general? Or in the case of the "hybrid theory"
proposal? [As that proposal violates monotonicity,
I don't think anybody wants to use it. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200212/msg00095.html]
> 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.
In other words, you've assumed that most people would rather approve
the option with supermajority than discuss the issue further.
> 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.
A satisfies its supermajority requirement. 8 people prefer D, 92 people
prefer A. Are you suggesting it be possible to put on the ballot a
"no further discussion" option which supermajority options must defeat
by the supermajority option?
> 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.
Not precisely. Supermajority is designed to tend to provide us with a few
things we can depend on (like the vote resolution system) when we make our
decisions. If we have a problem with non-free, the resolution probably
should not be "change vote resolution so that we can't vote on non-free".
> Again in my opinion, if a superminority of voters support no change
> rather than major change, then no change should take place.
In principle, if a majority of voters want change there should be a
reason they want change. However, it takes some understanding of the
underlying issue to come up with a resolution for that issue.
> 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.
Why? Almost everyone agreed that there's no point in trying come up
with some other solution.
> However, "Hybrid method" allows option A (the supermajority option) to win.
As it should. The flaws in that proposal lie elsewhere.
> 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.
Heh...
> 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'm not saying that the "should have voted differently". I do say,
however, that if their votes were sincere then this outcome is reasonable.
> 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.
In your hypothetical case, status quo includes the fact that a majority
of voters think something needs to be done.
--
Raul
Reply to: