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

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD votetallying

> 	I think I must be missing something major here (sorry:I've had
>  less than an average of 5 hours of sleep a night for the last 10 days
>  or so, and in my old age my faculties are failing me)

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:07:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yes, you're missing something. Of course the voting system should allow you to express your belief. However, it should also treat it properly.

He's discussing the situation where people who prefer B, but find A acceptable (sincere vote would be BAD), lie and claim that they find A unacceptable (actual vote is BDA). This gives them an *advantage* over voting sincerely.

What *advantage*?

The advantage that the vote might resolve as further discussion, rather
than achieve a resolution they consider acceptable?  How is this an

No. The advantage that the vote may resolve as *B*, their favorite option, rather than A. Yes, this is possible with Manoj's 'quorum'.

If we get rid of the majority requirement, we're basically saying that
we don't require a majority of voters to agree when we pass a general
resolution -- you're saying that's better, that a proper voting system
would pick something we say most of us don't agree on for that case,
but you seem to be basing this on the idea that you know we're lying
when we say that we don't agree.

I'm not advocating getting rid of the majority requirement. A winning option should have to beat the default option, and this creates no serious voting problems that I can see. (It preserves Ideal Democratic/Condorcet winners, and affects only the tie resolution method, and then only in those situations where the default option is in the Schwartz Set.)

I'm advocating getting rid of the "quorum" requirement, which can, at least in theory, create situations like the one I mention earlier in this message.


Reply to: