[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:39:08PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> example: quorum of 20, two ballots on the measure, plus the default
> option. two major schools of thought: those that support option A, and
> those that support option B.

If the quorum of 20 is significant, neither school of thought is "major".

Perhaps "detectable" would be a better adjective.

> > * For example:
> > 
> >    quorum: 20
> > 
> >    developer has reason to believe that not many votes will be cast.
> >    developer has reason to believe that the few votes which will be
> >    cast will be in favor of an option which developer is opposed to.
> > 
> >    Casting ballot against that option might cause ballot to achieve
> >    quorum.
> this is a strawman, because if <R people vote, then no option will
> achieve the R+1>default per-item quota.

Expressed in terms of scenario: A vs B, quorum 20

Case 1:

15 ABD 
D wins

Case 2:
15 ABD
 8 BDA
A wins

Here, the vote(s) for B caused A to win.

Other examples are possible (for example: 19 ABD, 1 BDA).

> > To make your proposal work right, we'd need a separate quorum
> > determination phase which is independent of the voting phase.
> i fail to see that argument.

See above.


Reply to: