On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:34:20AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > the proposal uses Condorcet as a standard, and tries to add Quota and > Supermajority options in a way that does not break Condorcet. "breaking" Condorcet isn't a meaningful thing to say. Adding quorum and supermajority obviously produce different outcomes to Cloneproof SSD -- if they didn't, there'd be no point adding them. They don't necessarily choose the Condorcet winner either, but that's a feature, not a bug. > the way that Quota is handled does break Condorcet, by allowing a winner > that is not the Ideal Democratic Winner. my amendment fixes that issue. That's nice, but "Ideal Democracy" is not the only thing we're trying to optimise here. We're also trying to get some stability (that's supermajority), adequate review (that's quorum), and decisiveness (not treating the default option in a Condorcet manner). > > Likewise, the quorum requirement is made on a per-option basis > > specifically to ensure that there's no bias in the system -- that is, > > there's no incentive not to vote for an option you like, because that > > would in any way make it more likely for an option you dislike to win. > it inherently biases the default option. my amendment removes that bias. > may i assume that you beleive all voters support the default option in > all cases? Huh? The "default option" isn't something that can be meaningfully supported in the same sense that resolutions and amendments are supported. It's what happens when the vote fails to choose a winner, nothing more. It doesn't need support to win, it needs all the other options to _not_ have adequate support to win -- that's what defaulting an election means, afaics. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature