On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 11:11:00AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 03:29:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > I'm sorry, but I don't think it's reasonable to use the default option in > > a traditional Condorcet variant. Selecting a result where the majority > > would have preferred the vote to default instead of that winning is an > > unacceptable result to my mind. > I think this is a rather extreme position, since pursuing almost any > goal in an election system compromises other goals. However, since > others seem to agree with the importance of this principle (which > strikes me as superfluous), maybe it's worth it. It's superfluous only if there's a Condorcet winner and a quorum, in which case it doesn't cause any problems, either. When there isn't a Condorcet winner, it ensures that the majority (or a superminority) have the ability to ensure any particular set of options do not succeed under any circumstances. Further, it does so without biassing the rankings amongst the other options at all. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature