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

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

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:57:13PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:27:21PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:

> > 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.

> I don't believe that it's acceptable for an otherwise beaten option to
> win due the the otherwise winning option being discarded due to a quorum
> requirement, as John suggests might happen.

> I also don't believe that it's acceptable to break the Monotonicity Criterion.

> If a winning option would be discarded due to quorum requirements, then
> I think the vote should probably be considered void.

If the "winning" option is discarded due to quorum requirements, then
given that all non-default options have the *same* quorum requirement,
this is exactly what would happen.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgp9zVzNF9ypS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: