Hello, On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 12:23:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:54:32AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote: > > Did you read it carefully? > > No, I didn't, and since it's so complicated I wouldn't expect to > understand it properly even if I had. I hate complicated examples. > Yes, I see. > There are many criteria you can choose from. One is "independence > from irrelevant alternatives: the order of preferences among the given > alternatives is not affected by alternatives not being voted on"; which > you're violating here. It's true that you have to violate it sometimes, > but we have a trivial excuse to avoid violating it here. The key, IMO, > is the word "irrelevant" - if an option transitively defeats the winning > option, then it's hardly irrelevant, but if an option fails the quorum > acceptability test, or the supermajority acceptability test, it will > never succeed no matter what happens, and is irrelevant. In my example local quorum causes the following problem: dropping an irrelevant option changes which relevant option wins the election. Global quorum does not have this problem. > Yes, that's why we're in favour of per-option quorums, which don't > introduce flawed incentives for little reason other than matching > tradition. Actually it does. See above. Jochen -- Omm (0)-(0) http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/index.html
Attachment:
pgpErfIoLdDR7.pgp
Description: PGP signature