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

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


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.


Attachment: pgpErfIoLdDR7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: