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

Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justification

On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:27:53PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Here's the nightmare scenario, under Manoj's amendment, which I think 
> John Robinson may have been trying to come up with.  Consider two options,
> A and B, and the default option D.  Let the quorum requirement R=20.
> 39 people show up to vote.  These are their preferences (most prefered 
> on the left, = denotes two equally preferred options).
> 19x A=DB

19 people thought B was a bad idea, and didn't care one way or the other
about A.

> 19x ABD

19 people thought both A and B were good ideas, and that A was better
than B.

> 1x BA=D

One person thought that B a good idea and didn't care one way or the
other about A.

> Under Manoj's proposed amendment, A fails to make quorum and is dropped, 
> and B wins (20 to 19).  

Which makes at least some sense: only 19 people actively approved of A,
while 20 actively approved of B.  Granted, this mechanism only kicks in
for votes with very low turnout or where significant numbers of people
don't actively approve of options, but I'm not convinced that this
example shows that the mechanism is flawed.

[I'm going to let Anthony Towns address the reasons we don't want a
margin-of-victory-over-default rule.]


Reply to: