Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
- From: Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 19:54:44 -0400
- Message-id: <20030524235444.GA1941@doctormoo>
>"breaking" Condorcet isn't a meaningful thing to say. Adding quorum and
I think we all understand it to mean "causing the system to violate the
>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.
So, supposing there is a Condorcet winner (who doesn't make quorum),
and another non-default option (who does), you want to choose the
*other* option, not the default option *or* the Condorcet option?
That's perverse, and certainly an extremely undesirable quality of a