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

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

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 04:40:49PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> correct me if i am wrong, but, isn't quorum suppoed to _prevent_
> minority rule? now you are saying that minority rule is good, and
> desired?

What do you mean?

There are forms of minority rule which quorum prevents, and there are
forms it allows.

Certainly, quorum isn't about having a small group of people dictating
to a larger group of people without the larger group having any say.

> if that is the case, i recommend scrapping the entire idea of quorum, as
> it breaks condorcet in strange and interesting ways.

Condorcet itself allows certain forms of minority role and prevents

Sometimes I get the idea that you're saying things, not because you're
trying to achieve some worthwhile end, but because you like the way
they sound.  Is that the case here?

> in this case, the options were not fairly close at all. 10 people
> prefered A over B. only five people prefered B over A. that is a 2:1
> margin. that is a 2/3'ds majority in favour of A, and it still lost.

So what?

In the example I presented earlier (ballot: A, B, default D, one
vote: ABD), option A was infinitely preferred over all other options.
You're arguing that we should accept such a vote, even though (other
than one person) no one wanted to (or was able to) participate in it.

And yet, you're arguing that we should accept this kind of election as
valid, and apparently the basis you're using for your argument is that
minority rule is bad.

What's the point?


Reply to: